Justine Greening: The reality is that we are providing an additional £55 million for maintained nursery schools for at least two years while we consult with the sector. We are looking at children’s centres at the same time.

Justine Greening: Absolutely. Indeed, new schools such as Northampton International Academy, which have an academic curriculum with a language specialism but also links to schools in other countries, are the sorts of schools that can really play a key role in ensuring that there are strong options for children on languages.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is quite right that having more young people learning Chinese is important for the UK’s place in the world; indeed, many employers are looking for more staff able to speak Mandarin Chinese. This September, we launched a £10 million Mandarin excellence programme, and hundreds of pupils in England have started intensive lessons in Chinese. By 2020, 5,000 pupils will be working towards a high level of fluency in Mandarin Chinese.

Rob Marris: One of the most widely spoken languages in the United Kingdom is Punjabi. What steps are the Government taking to encourage students to study that language, particularly in the light of Brexit, when our trade with India and Pakistan will become even more important?

Nick Gibb: The figures are not dissimilar to those in other professions. We realise that there are workload challenges, which is why we set up the workload challenge in 2014. There were 44,000 responses, which we analysed carefully. Three top issues were raised: dialogic deep marking, data collection and the preparation of lessons. We addressed all three issues by setting up three working parties, led and staffed by experienced teachers and headteachers. They reported and made recommendations, which we accepted, and action has now been taken.

Mike Kane: Despite the Minister’s earlier response, the Education Policy Institute has shown how excessive hours are driving record numbers of teachers from the profession, including friends and former colleagues of mine. The NASUWT has found that half of teachers have been to see a doctor in the past year due to work-related illness, and one in 10 have been prescribed antidepressants. We know that the Minister is on the record as not valuing those of us with the postgraduate certificate in education, but can he not see that the Government’s failure to support teachers is at the heart of the crisis in teachers’ morale?

Justine Greening: This Government are determined to make this a country that works for everyone, and education is at of the heart of that ambition. I have already had the opportunity to see some of the excellent work being carried out in our classrooms. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools has said, there are now 1.4 million more children in good or outstanding schools than there were in 2010. The Department for Education has an expanded role, taking in higher education, further education and skills. That was reflected in my first announcement as Secretary of State, of the six opportunity areas where we are going to trial a new approach to boosting attainment and outcomes in social mobility coldspots that have been identified by the Social Mobility Commission. We will work inside schools and outside them, with communities and businesses, to make sure that we can turbo-charge those children’s opportunities.

Justine Greening: The current rule is generally inoperative for many free schools when they begin, because they are not over-subscribed and it only kicks in if they are. We are proposing to put in place much stronger, more effective controls to ensure that faith schools that are opening will be community schools. I would very much encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the consultation document, which sets out proposals, including that those schools should demonstrate clear parental demand from parents of other faiths or no faith and that they should twin with primary schools and other schools.

Nick Gibb: On the last point, yes. We continue to value travel abroad. Learning a language is key to being able to travel and work abroad, and that is what the Mandarin Excellence Programme is all about. We hope 5,000 students will be fluent in Mandarin, reaching levels of HSK4 and HSK5, which go beyond A-level. We want more young people to take languages in our schools—including the language my hon. Friend teaches—following the fall in GCSEs thanks to the Labour party.

Sharon Hodgson: The leaked small schools task force report shows that the Department ignored advice to continue funding small schools to provide universal infant free school meals. This will affect 566 children in the schools represented by the Education Front Bench team and thousands more children represented by those on the Government Back Benches. Will the Minister today commit to reverse this short-sighted cut and ensure that small schools have adequate funding to feed their infant children free school meals?

David Burrowes: With the Calais Jungle earmarked for demolition next week, what is being done to provide safety and refuge for children for whom we have a legal and moral duty of care? On the last count conducted by Citizens UK/Safe Passage UK, 178 children were eligible for sanctuary in the UK under the Dublin criteria and 212 under the Dubs best interests amendment. The Red Cross has told me today that
“the Home Office’s energy in the last few weeks has been significant and recognises the scale of the challenge.”
However, that energy is not shared by the French authorities, which do not provide appointments, interpreters or resources to make transfers in the “days” that the Home Office wants rather than the “weeks” or the “months”.
Last month, the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Select Committee that she would get over to the UK as soon as possible all the children for whom we have a legal obligation, and she has confirmed today that she wants as many of them as possible over here before demolition. Last week, she said that
“compassion does not stop at the border”,
and she has been reported as saying today that the first 100 child refugees are coming to the UK “within weeks”.
Can the Home Secretary provide the assurance today that all children eligible for transfer to the UK will be in a place of safety before the demolition starts? The French accommodation centres are inadequate for children. When it comes to transportation, only 12 got on the bus to the centres on Thursday, and the next bus is not until tomorrow. The French Red Cross, however, has pledged to provide accommodation in one place for all children awaiting reunion with UK families. Will the Home Secretary ensure in her discussions with her French counterparts over the coming days that that happens before the demolition starts? Will the Government, with France, create a designated children’s centre sufficient for all children with relocation claims, whether under the Dubs amendment or Dublin arrangements, rather than risk dispersal and exploitation?
The Red Cross’s report—aptly named “No place for children”, as many who have visited the Calais jungle would testify—highlighted this weekend the humanitarian and bureaucratic nightmare. The “bureaucratic” aspect is particularly frustrating. No clear process has yet been established by the Home Office or France to identify, assess and relocate UK lone children whose best interests under the Dubs amendment are to be in the UK.
Will the Government use funds, whether they be from the Department for International Development or wherever, to establish an appropriately mandated organisation with the authority from France and the UK to identify all minors eligible for transfer and to assist in the progress of their cases, whether it be through investigating claims through family links under the Dublin arrangements or the Dubs best interests criteria? Finally, does the Home Secretary acknowledge that until we have those answers, that plan for the safety of those vulnerable Calais children will risk the Prime Minister’s words last week on the importance of standing up for the weak being just that—words?

Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for raising this matter, giving me the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing. I particularly appreciate his comments about the urgency of this matter,  and I share his view on that, as does everybody in this House. I attended a meeting with my French counterpart for nearly two hours today. He had eight or nine people with him, as did I. It is fair to say that the bureaucratic element will now be dealt with with the sort of urgency that we want to see.
On ensuring that there is access to a children’s centre when the clearances take place, I certainly share my hon. Friend’s view that it is essential to ensure that those children are kept safe during any clearances, and I have made that point to the French Minister.
The children that can be dealt with under the Dublin arrangements are not, by any means, all the children we want to take, but it is part 1 of where we want to help. We have been pressing for a list. I appreciate that Citizens UK and other non-governmental organisations have a list, but for the Dublin arrangements to work, the children have to come through the host country. We believe that the French will give that to us this week. My hon. Friend should be in no doubt that we will move with all urgency—a matter of days or a week at the most—in order to deliver on that commitment when we get it.

Joanna Cherry: I welcome the Home Secretary’s acceptance that there is a moral duty to help those children, but of course it is also a legal duty, which exists not just because of the Dublin convention, but also because of the Dubs amendment passed by the House. It is clear that there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the current lack of transparency from the Government in relation to those legal duties. Given the lack of meaningful action to date in bringing those unaccompanied minors to the UK, does the Home Secretary agree that it would be a good idea for the Government to commit to publishing a regular update on numbers and progress? Will she commit to publishing a fortnightly update?
Will the Home Secretary tell us how many children the United Kingdom is prepared to take in during the next week? We would like to hear numbers. We hear that there are up to 400 unaccompanied children in the camp—[Interruption.] I am being heckled, with an hon. Member asking how many Scotland will take. Scotland has already taken more than a proportionate share of refugees who have come to this country, and we stand ready to take as many as we can, but unfortunately we have to wait for the UK Government to act. That is what the urgent question from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) is about.
I want to raise one final issue. I visited the camp in Calais at Easter with some of my Scottish National party colleagues and members of the Scottish Refugee Council. We heard that the last time the southern part of the camp was demolished, it was demolished with no warning. People came out of their tents in the middle of the night and what few belongings they had were crushed. Will the Home Secretary undertake to speak to the French Government to ensure that that sort of inhumanity does not occur again in relation not only to children, but to adults?

Amber Rudd: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question. She asked about the numbers under the Dubs amendment, which was agreed in May, and I can tell her that we have taken more than 50 in process. They are largely from Greece, because that was the area deemed to have the highest differential in terms of the children’s vulnerability compared with the UK. We are now focused much more on trying to get these children from the Calais camps, and for the past three weeks the French have been working with us on identifying them.
The hon. and learned Lady asked for details about numbers and plans for bringing children to the UK. I would say to her and to the House in all honesty and humility that we have to be careful about how much information we share publicly about those numbers and plans, because it is not always in the best interests of the children for the criminal gangs involved in trafficking them to have information about what the plans are, how many children will be taken—[Interruption.] Saying “Come on.” does a disservice to the Government and to our intentions to look after those children. Simply adopting a high moral tone as if total disclosure were the answer is wrong, and I ask right hon. and hon. Members to work with us on this. I am happy to be completely frank and talk about the issue, but we do not think that public disclosure of this is in the best interest of the more vulnerable children.

Philip Davies: Why do genuine refugees need to come from France to the UK to be looked after properly? Why cannot France process people’s asylum applications? What is so terrible about refugees living in France? Why do they have to come to the UK? Can the Home Secretary explain why these people are so desperate to get out of a safe country—France—into the United Kingdom, because I suspect that if we tried to palm off our refugees on another EU country the Opposition would be apoplectic.

Stewart McDonald: Will the Home Secretary join me in thanking my constituents Esther and Tim O’Connor, who have visited the camp and done everything they can in a voluntary  capacity to help ease the situation, particularly for children? Has she had any discussions with her French counterpart on the Le Touquet agreement, and does she expect any changes to that agreement in the coming months?

David Davis: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the next steps in leaving the European Union.
The mandate for Britain to leave the European Union is clear, overwhelming and unarguable. As the Prime Minister has said more than once, we will make a success of Brexit, and no one should seek to find ways to thwart the will of the people expressed in the referendum on 23 June. It is now incumbent on the Government to deliver an exit in the most orderly and smooth way possible, delivering maximum certainty for businesses and workers. I want to update the House on how the Government plan to reflect UK withdrawal from the European Union on the statute book while delivering that certainty and stability.
We will start by bringing forward a great repeal Bill that will mean the European Communities Act 1972 ceases to apply on the day we leave the EU. It was this Act that put EU law above UK law, so it is right, given the clear instruction for exit given to us by the people in the referendum, that we end the authority of European Union law. We will return sovereignty to the institutions of this United Kingdom. That is what people voted for on 23 June: for Britain to take control of its own destiny, and for all decisions about taxpayers’ money, borders and laws to be taken here in Britain.
The referendum was backed by six to one in this House. On all sides of the argument—leave and remain—we have a duty to respect and carry out the people’s instruction. As I have said, the mandate is clear, and we will reject any attempt to undo the referendum result, any attempt to hold up the process unduly or any attempt to keep Britain in the EU by the back door by those who did not like the answer they were given on 23 June.
We are consulting widely with business and Parliament, and we want to hear and take account of all views and opinions. The Prime Minister has been clear that we will not be giving a running commentary, because that is not the way to get the right deal for Britain, but we are committed to providing clarity where we can as part of this consultative approach. Naturally, I want this House to be engaged throughout, and we will observe the constitutional and legal precedents that apply to any new treaty on a new relationship with the European Union. Indeed, my whole approach is about empowering this place. [Interruption.] Think about it.
The great repeal Act will convert existing European Union law into domestic law, wherever practical. That will provide for a calm and orderly exit, and give as much certainty as possible to employers, investors, consumers and workers. We have been clear that UK employment law already goes further than European Union law in many areas, and this Government will do nothing to undermine those rights in the workplace. I notice there were no cheers for that on the Labour Benches.
In all, there is more than 40 years of European Union law in UK law to consider, and some of it simply will not work on exit. We must act to ensure there is no black hole in our statute book. It will then be for this House—I repeat, this House—to consider changes to  our domestic legislation to reflect the outcome of our negotiation and our exit, subject to international treaties and agreements with other countries and the EU on matters such as trade.
The European Communities Act means that if there is a clash between an Act of the UK Parliament and EU law, European Union law prevails. As a result, we have had to abide by judgments delivered by the European Court of Justice in its interpretation of European Union law. The great repeal Bill will change that with effect from the day we leave the European Union.
Legislation resulting from the UK’s exit must work for the whole of the United Kingdom. To that end, although no one part of the UK can have a veto over our exit, the Government will consult with the devolved Administrations. I have already held initial conversations with the leaders of the devolved Governments about our plans, and I will make sure that the devolved Administrations have every opportunity to work closely with us.
Let me be absolutely clear: this Bill is a separate issue from when article 50 will be triggered. The great repeal Bill is not what will take us out of the EU, but what will ensure the UK statute book is fit for purpose after we have left. It will put the elected politicians in this country fully in control of determining the laws that affect its people’s lives—something that does not apply today.
To leave the EU, we will follow the process set out in article 50 of the treaty on European Union. The Prime Minister will invoke article 50 no later than the end of March next year. That gives us the space required to do the necessary work to shape our negotiating strategy. The House will understand that this is a very extensive and detailed programme of work that will take some time. The clarity on the timing of our proposed exit also gives the European Union the time needed to prepare its position for the negotiation. The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said that the Prime Minister had brought, and I quote, “welcome” certainty on the timing of Brexit talks.
We will, as Britain always should, abide by our treaty obligations. We will not tear up EU law unilaterally, as some have suggested, but ensure that there is stability and certainty as Britain takes control on the day of exit, and not before.
People have asked what our plan is for exit. This is the first stage. To be prepared for an orderly exit, there is a need to move forward on domestic legislation, in parallel with our European negotiation, so that we are ready for the day of our withdrawal, when the process set out in article 50 concludes. Therefore, I can tell the House that we intend to introduce the great repeal Bill in the next parliamentary Session. It demonstrates the Government’s determination to deliver the will of the British people, expressed in the EU referendum result, that Britain should once again make its own laws for its own people.
It is nations that are outward-looking, enterprising and agile that will prosper in an age of globalisation. I believe that when we have left the European Union, when we are once again in true control of our own affairs, we will be in an even stronger position to confront the challenges of the future. The Government will build a global Britain that will trade around the world, build new alliances with other countries and deliver prosperity for its people.

Keir Starmer: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and thank him for advance notice of it.
The decisions the Government take over the next few months and years on exiting the EU will define us for a generation, so I look forward to seeing the Secretary of State regularly at the Dispatch Box. However, I have to say that he is not making a very good start. His first statement on 5 September was widely criticised for saying nothing, and this one is not much better. When I first read it, I thought it was the statement he gave last time—a bit of process and no substance, but I congratulate him on a bit of humour in the phrase,
“we are committed to providing clarity where we can”.
During the referendum campaign, much was made by the leave side of parliamentary sovereignty. In his statement, the Secretary of State said:
“We will return sovereignty to the institutions of this United Kingdom.”
Yet it seems that the Government want to draw up negotiating terms, negotiate and reach a deal without any parliamentary approval. That is not making Parliament sovereign; it is sidelining Parliament. That is why Labour is calling for a vote on the basic terms proposed by the Government before article 50 is invoked. Some argue that that is a device to frustrate the process. It is nothing of the sort. It is making sure that we get the best possible deal for Britain; it is making sure that the Government actually have a plan; and it is basic accountability on some of the most important decisions of our lifetime.
Let us remind ourselves that the Government had no plan for Brexit in their 2015 manifesto. In fact, they had a manifesto commitment to
“safeguard British interests in the single market.”
Whitehall famously made no plans for the leave vote, and the Prime Minister did not explain her plans for Brexit before assuming office. Now the Government plan to proceed to an exit deal without a vote in this House, which is wholly unacceptable in any democracy. If there is to be no vote when the terms of negotiation are agreed, at what stage in the process does the Secretary of State propose that the basic terms of the article 50 negotiations, about which he said nothing today, should be debated and voted on in this House?
The Secretary of State makes much of the great repeal Bill, so we are having a conversation and debate now about what will happen at the very end of the process instead of what is happening at the beginning of the process. That Bill will not provide for parliamentary scrutiny of the article 50 negotiating plans; it is about what will happen after exit. Can he confirm that the vote on the great repeal Bill will come after, not before, article 50 is invoked next March?
We accept and respect the result of the referendum, but neither those who voted to remain nor those who voted to leave gave the Government a mandate to take an axe to our economy. Throughout the process, the national interest must come first, but by flirting with hard Brexit the Prime Minister puts at risk Britain’s access to the single market, rather than doing the right thing for jobs, business and working people in this   country. In fact, I observe that the words “single market” did not appear at all in today’s statement. So much for putting the national interest first.
We need clarity, and we need answers. Can the Secretary of State assure the House today that the Government will seek continued access to the single market on the best possible terms? Will he also assure us that they will end the divisive and hostile tone of Brexit discussions in recent weeks? This is the defining issue of this Parliament and, quite probably, Parliaments to come. The job of any responsible Government is now to bring the country together, not to drive it apart. I hope that he will take that approach.

Stephen Gethins: May I also thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to try to update us today? I wish him all the best for trying to get through his statement without getting into trouble with his boss, the Prime Minister, this time. He seems to be aiming to do that by not telling us anything. We may be no clearer on whether this is a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit, but we know it is a dog’s Brexit. I will be frank: this Government’s frankly irresponsible failure to provide any details about their plans is having an impact beyond this place. The Fraser of Allander Institute reckons that in Scotland alone there could be between 30,000 and 80,000 jobs lost because of his plans to take us out of the European Union.
My first question is, will the Secretary of State tell us what plans he has to formally involve the devolved Administrations? I noticed that he talked previously about involving them, but now talks about consulting with them. The Government have provided us no answers, so I am going to try to make it easy for him. He has had 89 days since he took up his post—three months on Thursday. To stop him getting into any more trouble with the Prime Minister, I am going to make the next question very, very simple. Does he agree with page 72 of the Conservative party manifesto, on which he was elected, that it should be
“yes to the Single Market”?
In fact, I will make it easier: is it his objective to keep the United Kingdom in the single market?

David Davis: Well, that was longer on length than it was on content. Let me answer both of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He intimated that we were not going to involve the devolved Administrations. That is not the case, as his own leader in Scotland will tell him—indeed, she was called before we announced the great repeal Act to make sure she was aware of it. I cannot remember her exact words, but she said she thought it was very straightforward or common sense—something of that nature.
On our approach to the negotiations, I will not go into the details, but it is very clear. The objectives are simple: to meet the instruction from the British people, which means regaining control of our borders, regaining control of our laws and regaining control of our money, and at the same time getting the best possible access to the European market that we can negotiate—end of story. It is very simple.

David Davis: My right hon. Friend was, if I remember correctly, at the Conservative party conference, and she may have heard what I said there. There were two things that relate to this. One is that the single market is one description of the way the European Union operates, but there are plenty of people who have access to the single market, some of them tariff-free, who make a great success of that access, and it is the success that we are aiming for.
The other point I made was that the global competition for talent is something that we must engage in. If we are going to win the global competition in economic terms, we must engage in the global competition for talent. We are entirely determined to do that, but that does not mean, and it is not the same as, having no control of immigration. They are very different issues. We will be going for global talent and we will be going for the best market access we can obtain.

Angela Eagle: This is the first time I have ever heard parliamentary sovereignty referred to as micromanagement.
In the past few weeks, we have seen many hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals working here question the welcome they received in this country and their future in this country. We know that many UK citizens living and working abroad in Europe are going through a similar turmoil. We have heard now that the Foreign Office has told the London School of Economics that it cannot involve foreign nationals in the work of Brexit as part of a contract. Will the Secretary of State condemn that? Will he reassure the UK citizens living abroad, and will he reassure EU citizens living and working here that they are welcome here in this country? Will he reassure Parliament that, however the Brexit negotiations go, the current arrangement will be maintained?

David Davis: I will answer that shout from the Front Bench. The answer is as soon as I can get that negotiation concluded with the European Union—full stop. People should not worry people unnecessarily or get them concerned. Bear in mind, five out of six migrants who are here either already have indefinite leave to remain or  will have it by the time we depart the Union. It is an important question that I take seriously, and I am determined that we get an outcome that is successful for everyone.

David Davis: The hon. Lady had an opportunity about half an hour ago to make that point directly to the Home Secretary, but I will draw it to her attention. That is the best thing I can do. The simple truth is that I am concerned if people are afraid for their position in this country, and we will put that right as soon as we can.

John Bercow: I gently implore the Secretary of State to face the House so that we can all benefit from his mellifluous tones. [Interruption.] Somebody chunters rather ungraciously from a sedentary position or otherwise. “You pays your money and you takes your choice,” but the right hon. Gentleman must be heard.

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend will be aware that sometimes it is very important to pay attention to the liberal elite. He will be aware that, on referendum night, we were told:
“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%...When the British people have spoken you do what they command…Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.”
Those are the words of Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon in the district of the Yeovil in the county of Somerset, who is the most elitist liberal I know, which is saying something. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to be true to the views of Lord Ashdown, the principles of liberalism and the traditions of this House, and to give effect to the British people’s vote. Seventeen million votes were cast on 23 June for Britain to leave the European Union. Attempts by anti-democratic and illiberal voices on the Opposition Benches to thwart the British people’s will will rightly be treated with disdain.

David Davis: My hon. Friend—my right hon. Friend; I will not hold the allegation against him—makes a very good point. I point to my own history. For a considerable period—four or five years, I think—I negotiated another treaty with the European Union. [Interruption.] It was Amsterdam. The approach was very simple. We did not disclose the upcoming negotiation, but we talked about what was under way and what the priorities were, and that is how I expect this to pan out in future. There will be large numbers of debates in the House, with the first on Wednesday, and even if we did not want to do it— but we will—the Opposition would have as many debates as they liked on the subject. I do not accept the argument that we are simply not going to talk about this.
Secondarily, there will be a Select Committee whose sole job for the few years for which it will exist will be to scrutinise the Department. As far as I can, I will be open with it, but I will not give away things that are deleterious to the national interest. This is an important point to remember: it is the national interest that is engaged, whether we want to talk about the outcome, or whether we want to get the outcome.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the Secretary of State take steps to achieve an early UK withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, with the re-establishment of Britain’s historic waters, both to rebuild fish stocks in our seas and to revive the British industry?

David Davis: Had the Chairman of the Treasury Committee read my evidence to the Lords Select Committee, he would have seen that I gave an undertaking that this House and the other House would be at least as well informed as democratic institutions on the Continent, including the European Parliament. That has never been done before, but it will be done now.

Paul Flynn: There seems to be some political forgetfulness here. Does the Minister not recall that the Chancellor has forecast financial bumps along the road? Others fear that they will not just be Brexit bumps and that a vast sinkhole will open up in the road, into which the British economy will fall in a tailspin. If that Brexit slump occurs, how can the Minister deny the public a second vote on this? Second thoughts are always better than first thoughts, especially as the referendum was conducted on the basis of untruths from both parties. Is he going to honour the pledge to give an extra £350 million a week to the national health service?

Anne Main: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today. In particular, I liked the section in which he said that he wants to give as much certainty as possible to employers, investors, consumers and workers. Half of St Albans’ economically active population works in London, and many of them work in financial services and the knowledge-based economy. What conduit can they have to input into the process through which we are now going, and what assurances can he give me that London and the UK will maximise free trade with Europe while tapping into the growth markets around the world?

David Davis: Given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is sitting next to me, I am bound to say that London is a massive global city and an extraordinarily successful one. We will do everything necessary to protect, defend and enhance that success in the markets that my hon. Friend mentioned—in the financial services, the digital markets and the intellectual markets. We are looking at all of them right across the board. She should tell her constituents who want to have an input into the process that they should go through their trade organisations or come directly to the Department to tell us where there concerns are and where they think the opportunities are and we will take their comments on board.

Chuka Umunna: Does the Secretary of State recognise that although 52% of people voted for us to leave, of course with the consequence that we will exit the European Union, the suggestion that the more than 16 million people who voted to remain are some kind of liberal elite is utterly false and divisive? A majority of young voters, a majority of ethnic minority voters and a majority of people in three of the constituent parts of our country all voted to remain, and the job of the Government is to find a deal that serves the interests of everybody—both those who voted to remain and those who voted to leave—not to try to sow further seeds of division in our country.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to hear that I agree with almost every word he said. The only distinction that I would make is that I consider myself a liberal, as I said earlier. The aim of the Government is to find an outcome that meets the needs of all of the United Kingdom; again, it is invidious to talk about one’s own speeches, but that is precisely what I said last week. We need to engage the interests of all citizens of the country, whichever way they voted, in order to get the best outcome for the country.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman may have had some time to spare, but he has not used it very well. Indeed, he needs some reading lessons, or maybe reading glasses. Ten years ago—not two years ago; he should get his dates right—I when talked about the possibility of a double referendum, in the early days of our discussions on the matter, I said that we should set up a mandate referendum, laying out exactly what our claims would be, and then if we won that, use it as a lever to get good terms and make a decision thereafter. That is not what the Government did; they put a straight question. If the hon. Gentleman went out on the streets of London and asked people, “What do you think you voted for? Did you vote for a mandate, or did you vote to leave?”, the answer would be that they voted to leave.

Rachel Reeves: Today at airports, holidaymakers are being offered less than €1 to the pound. My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), and for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), have asked about the 15% decline in the value of sterling since the referendum, but so far the Secretary of State has failed to answer. We have seen huge uncertainty since our decision to leave the European Union. What efforts will the Government make to provide greater clarity for businesses and the economy, and to ensure that the Government are a little more careful with their words, which would help with the volatility and the sharp declines we have seen in the value of sterling in recent weeks?

David Davis: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. We have already instructed the Student Loans Company to underpin loans for foreign students to 2016-17. That is an action designed to help students get here, not the opposite.

Liz McInnes: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on medical research, I am extremely concerned about the impact of Brexit on scientific and medical research in this country. Scientists have always worked collaboratively across borders, but researchers are now worried about funding and about the job insecurity and uncertainty faced by their EU national colleagues. Can the Secretary of State  reassure scientists in this country that their research will continue to be funded and that their EU national colleagues will continue to be welcome to work here?

Melanie Onn: Some UK legislation for workers goes further than EU rules, but not all of it. It is also clear that European Court judgments have been far more worker-friendly than those in our own tribunals, and certainly more friendly than this Government. If the Government seriously intend to protect workers’ rights, they should adopt my Bill, which is intended to maintain EU standards for workers and their employment rights, especially those in secondary legislation. Failing to do that would leave the door wide open for future Governments to eat into hard-fought and hard-won rights through statutory instruments. The Secretary of State claims to be a champion of workers, so will he consider introducing stand-alone legislation at the earliest opportunity to continue the protection of Britain’s workers?

David Davis: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I have given an undertaking that there will be no reversal of the protection of workers’ rights, as has the Prime Minister. Indeed, she has gone beyond that and said that there will be an expansion of that protection.

Toby Perkins: When Carolyn Fairburn of the CBI says that businesses will fear the worst in the event of not knowing the sense of direction of the Government, the Secretary of State should take that seriously. If she has spent the past hour and thirty five minutes listening to his statement she will still be none the wiser about what the Government are trying to achieve with the negotiations. The White Paper that the Secretary of State suggested he would bring forward would be a very good way of providing some certainty to business. He has dodged the question four times, so will he now come to the Dispatch Box and confirm whether it is still his intention to bring forward that White Paper, and if it is not will he tell us why?

Stephen Phillips: I seek to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should receive urgent consideration, namely the terms upon which the Government are proposing to conduct negotiations with the European Commission for the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
Let me be crystal clear what the proposed debate is not about. It is not about reversing the referendum result. It is not about subverting the will of the majority who voted, as I did, to leave the European Union. It is not about trying to secure a second referendum. We had a vote, the country voted as it did and that result must be respected.
Personally, I had nothing whatever to do with the leave campaign, which was, in my view, conducted in what I regarded as a disgraceful sea of falsehood, spin and propaganda. Like many, however, given that fundamental reform of the EU appeared impossible I exercised my own vote on the sure and simple basis that the people of this country should be able to throw out of office those who make the rules that govern their lives—in other words, I voted on the basis of sovereignty.
The Government have a mandate as a result of the referendum to take the UK out of the European Union, but they do not have a mandate as to the terms on which that should be done. Nearly half of those who voted wanted no substantive change at all in the relationship between this country and the European Union. Their voices, which did not chime with my own, appear entirely to have been forgotten in the rhetoric of hard Brexit that has somehow become received wisdom on the part of the Government. The Government have no mandate for that. We cannot extrapolate from the result of the referendum the specific terms upon which the majority of those in this country wish their relations with the European Union now to be governed. That can only be done by seeking a mandate from this House, to which the citizens of this country return right hon. and hon. Members to express their views.
The suggestion that the Government will not consult this House and listen to the voices of those who represent the voters of this country is fundamentally undemocratic, is inimical to the traditions that underpin our constitution, and in my view is wrong. It also runs contrary to the reasons for which I and others voted as we did. I did not vote leave to see one tyranny that failed to consult this House, in the form of the European Commission, replaced by another in the form of a Government who fail to listen to what this House thinks about their negotiating position.
Fundamentally, this House should—in my judgment, must—be consulted by the Government through debate, and the views of Members heard, before a decision is made as to the broad negotiating position that should be adopted in negotiations with the European Union. For that reason this debate is both important and urgent. I am thus grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for having permitted this application to be made, and hope that both you and  the whole House are left in no doubt at all that this matter should be considered by right hon. and hon. Members at the earliest possible opportunity.

Tom Blenkinsop: This case came to light when Wonga contacted the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in June 2015 to say that he had evidence that appeared to show that two years earlier the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) had provided a draft report by the Committee of Public Accounts to a Wonga employee and given that employee a chance to comment on the draft. The commissioner rightly referred to the matter to the Committee of Public Accounts, which conducted its own initial investigation and published a special report that concluded that the disclosure of the draft report by the hon. Member constituted a substantial interference in the work of the Committee. It is for the Privileges Committee to investigate such allegations, but we felt that in this case there were complications which made it desirable to ask the commissioner to conduct an investigation on our behalf. Not least among the reasons for this were media allegations that the hon. Member had benefited financially from his actions. I wish to stress from the start that those allegations were unsubstantiated and were dismissed by the commissioner as groundless. The Privileges Committee agrees completely with that finding.
The commissioner reported to the Standards Committee, as required under Standing Orders. In view of her conclusions that the case touched on matters of privilege, the Committee referred the commissioner’s report to us for adjudication. On behalf of the Privileges Committee, I thank the commissioner for her thorough investigation and the Standards Committee for its co-operation.
There have been three separate inquiries into the allegations and at each stage the hon. Gentleman made no attempt to deny his role in these events. Instead, he has continually apologised unreservedly. Our role on the Privileges Committee is therefore less concerned with what happened. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman disclosed the draft report without authority and therefore committed a contempt of the House. I am more concerned about what sanctions should be applied as a result.
In 2008, the then Standards and Privileges Committee concluded that the unauthorised disclosure of a draft report or of advice to a Select Committee not only betrays confidence but can damage trust between Members, and between those who work for or with them. It also undermines the effectiveness of the Committee’s work. Leaking is a reprehensible act. In any case, where the Committee is able to discover the source of a leak it will be prepared to recommend appropriately severe sanctions. There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman’s actions did have a significant effect on the work of the Committee and so more than an apology is in order. We now turn to mitigating factors.
The Privileges Committee explored with the hon. Gentleman his motives for sharing the draft report and his grasp of the confidential nature of such documents at the time he committed the contempt. It was clear to the Committee that he did not act out of financial gain and was not seeking to ensure that the views of Wonga were written into the report. Instead, this was part of a long-running campaign he had led against payday lenders. He described his actions as the result of his own naiveté and stupidity. We accept that this was the case. We also accept the sincerity of his apologies and have borne in mind his full co-operation with all the inquiries into his behaviour.
Turning to sanctions, there are few precedents for this kind of case. In 1999, there were two cases involving the passing on of draft reports to the Government, which we consider to be more serious than the circumstances we are currently examining. In those cases, one Member was suspended for 10 sitting days and another was suspended for five sitting days. Bearing in mind the mitigating factors above, but also the undoubted seriousness of the offence in the hon. Gentleman’s case, we have recommended a personal statement to the House and a suspension for two sitting days. The hon. Member made a personal statement at the first possible opportunity: on the day the report was published. I ask the House today to approve our recommendation on suspension as proportionate to the offence and as a clear message to others inside and outside the House that leaking Select Committee papers is wrong and will be met with appropriate sanctions where the source of the leak is identified.
Question put and agreed to.

Sajid Javid: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I welcome the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) to her new position. I wish her and her team all the very best.
I have been a Member of this House for six-and-a-half years. In the countless contacts I have had with my constituents over that time, one issue has come up more often and more consistently than any other: housing. I am sure other hon. Members would say the same. Whether it is a lack of affordable accommodation, standards not being met, calls for housing to be built on one site or campaigns against it being built on another, the subject dominates inbox, postbag and surgery alike. Meeting that challenge requires action on many fronts, but at the heart of it all is the need for a clear, fair and, above all, effective planning system.
My two Conservative predecessors at the Department for Communities and Local Government did more to reform planning than all their Labour counterparts combined. More than 1,000 pages of policy was reduced to just 50 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016 did much to streamline and speed up the process. It is a record of real action and real change that is already paying off. The year 2015 saw more planning permissions delivered than in any year since records began. Almost 900,000 new homes have been delivered in England alone since the start of 2010.
As I said just last week, however, there is much more to do. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that, if we are going to build a Britain that works for everyone, we have to have a housing market that works for everyone. That means doing still more to tackle the housing shortage by giving communities greater certainty over development and reducing the time it takes to get from planning permission to completion. This Bill will help us to do just that.

Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early. He is quite right about the inbox: this subject dominates so much of the dealings we have with our constituents. There are two areas the Bill does not cover that I think it ought to. I wonder if, over the course of the next few weeks, he and his fellow Ministers could consider whether the Bill should be amended to deal with them.
The first point is that inspectors, on dealing with developers’ appeals, take into account the number of planning permissions given but not the number of housing starts. Planning permissions are in the hands of the district planning authority, but housing starts are in the hands of the developer. If the developer will not make use of the planning permission, it is unfair on the district council and unfair on the affected neighbourhood that does not want to see the planning go ahead.
Secondly—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be very, very quick indeed—in relation to matters going up to an inspector, I gather from the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for  Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) that they cannot be called in once they have gone to the inspector, but they ought to be if there is to be any even-handed justice and equality of arms.

Sajid Javid: My right hon. and learned Friend makes some very good points. The first part of his question was whether we might be able to take some of them into account in the Bill. I anticipate that at some point there will very likely be some amendments to the Bill. If that is the case, they will of course be discussed properly at that time. He made some suggestions that I will think about carefully, in particular what some people call “landbanking” by certain developers.. I talked about that very important point last week in my party conference speech. It is something on which we will be taking further action.

Andrew Mitchell: The introduction to the Bill says that one of its central aims is strengthening neighbourhood planning and giving local people more certainty over where homes will be built in their area. The Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), has said that putting power into the hands of local people to decide where development occurs is a key objective. The Secretary of State will be aware that Birmingham’s Labour council wishes to build 6,000 homes on the Sutton Coldfield green belt and no account has been taken of the virtually unanimous opposition of the royal town’s 100,000 residents, who have been completely disfranchised. Will he agree to take account of the unanimous view of the newly elected Sutton Coldfield town council, who are adamantly opposed to this on behalf of the 100,000 people they represent?

John Mann: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He will know that Bassetlaw has more local plans in process and agreed than anywhere else, so we do know a little bit about them. If he is saying that a local council or the Secretary of State can decide to overrule a local community that has been through a huge, state-funded consultation, had a referendum and decided where the housing will go, what is the point?

Teresa Pearce: I would like to put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for his warm welcome.
The Neighbourhood Planning Bill does not appear at first glance to be a controversial one. Indeed, it includes many measures that we support. There are, however, elements of the Bill that could be strengthened or amended, so it was good to hear the Secretary of State say that he might be open to amendments in Committee. Labour Members will support appropriate measures that seek to streamline the delivery of much-needed new homes and further engage local people in the shaping of their communities.
We urgently need new homes, so it is a shame that the Bill misses the part that set out to achieve that when it was announced in the Queen’s Speech in May, namely putting the National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory footing. However, we are pleased that, following pressure from both sides of the House, the  unnecessary step to privatise the Land Registry has been dropped. That has been warmly welcomed by almost everybody in the housing sector, but the Bill must be seen in context, and it cannot be detached from the wider housing crisis we currently face.
The Government say that the aim of the Bill is to free up more land for new housing and to expedite the beginning of building once planning permission has been granted. We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation and urgently need more homes, and the Bill does not go far enough to provide them. The Bill could do so much more to encourage development and engage local residents in the process.
The Bill introduces measures in four key areas: neighbourhood planning, planning conditions, the planning register and compulsory purchase orders. The proposals on neighbourhood planning will allow neighbourhood plans to influence the planning process at an earlier stage, and will help to streamline the making and revision of neighbourhood plans. We support measures to streamline neighbourhood planning and to promote the ability of local residents to participate, but the Bill raises a number of questions. First, as the British Property Federation has noted, greater clarity is needed on the level and weight attributed to neighbourhood plans at every stage of their preparation. For example, more clarity is needed on whether a general direction of travel of a neighbourhood plan would be considered in the determination of a planning application.
Secondly, there is huge concern surrounding resources and the impact that the measure will have on our already stretched local planning authorities. Many of them already lack the resources they need to promote quality placemaking. The new measures make significant demands in terms of time and resources, and many planning departments are working on local plans before the deadline next year. How will the Minister ensure that they will be able to resource both adequately? Local authorities have a statutory duty to support neighbourhood planning groups and to provide a local plan. That could present problems for smaller district councils that have limited resources and capacity to respond to multiple pressures.

Chris Philp: And newts surveys. Such surveys can be done only at certain times of the year. That is a very onerous and often very serious set of conditions.

Teresa Pearce: I thank the Minister for his intervention but I would like to see real statistical evidence. Are we trying to solve a problem that does not exist? We all have anecdotal evidence, but perhaps in Committee we will see more evidence.
It is my experience that some developers welcome pre-commencement planning conditions because they enable planning permission to be secured without finalising the full details. It can save work duplication. For example, a developer may not wish to spend significant amounts of time deciding between different types of render for the outside of a development when they know it could be agreed at a later date. Indeed, a condition could be established in the consent to match the local area and street scene.
London Councils say that the measure will put considerable strain on the resources of local planning authorities. It proposes that a better solution would be to promote best practice in pre-application discussions between developers and local planning authorities. There are questions on the process. For example, what if late representations are received, and what if a councillor wishes to add a pre-commencement condition on the night of the planning committee?
Behind that lies the fact that pre-commencement planning conditions are not a bad thing. They have an important role in securing sustainable development that is careful and considerate of local communities. Conditions should be imposed only when consent would not be acceptable without them. By allowing room for negotiation, we are changing the nature of how conditions are set and their purpose. We could inadvertently either encourage inappropriate development by lowering our standards of acceptable development or, when disagreement arises between applicant and planning authority, discourage developers from building, which no hon. Member wants. There are questions about whether the measure is necessary. I look forward to seeing the stats behind it to show that it is. There is an existing framework for applicants to appeal specific conditions that they consider do not meet the national policy tests.
If we are to proceed, it is essential to ensure that the Bill does not have unintended negative consequences. Greater clarity is needed on appeal routes when agreement cannot be reached, and on pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions. It is right that there is a public consultation, but even if the Bill becomes law, I do not anticipate it adding any of the extra homes that we urgently need. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow planning consent, but the chronic underfunding of local planning authorities. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow construction, but the drastic skills shortage in the construction sector. It is not pre-commencement planning conditions that slow new schemes coming forward, but the lack of strategic infrastructure involvement.

Teresa Pearce: I am afraid I need to move on because many hon. Members wish to speak and the hour is late. [Interruption.] There are lots of Government Members.
The Bill makes provision for permitted development to be recorded on the planning register. Given the existing pressures and further commitments in the Bill— I have mentioned the wider question of resourcing—I should like the Minister to consider the funding of planning authorities. When local authorities are pressed for resources—they must decide, for example, between child protection and adult social services—planning is often squeezed.
The Bill attempts to streamline compulsory purchase powers, and includes temporary possession of land to enable schemes to store equipment and machinery so that they can be delivered. The temporary possession of land has been used widely in my constituency under the Crossrail Act 2008. The proposed changes to compulsory purchase orders would enable councils to capture the value from increased land prices to invest in the local infrastructure needed to complement and facilitate new housing schemes. While that can accelerate development, CPOs still require approval from the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, it is hoped that those measures will help to encourage development.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the Bill is what is not in it. Along with the Local Government Association and others, we welcome the news that the Government have not included the planned privatisation of the Land Registry. Will the Minister clarify whether the initiative to privatise the Land Registry has bitten the dust, has been kicked into the long grass or is in the rubbish bin?
The Bill is quite different from the measure outlined in the Queen’s Speech earlier this year. The Prime Minister said in her conference speech last week,
“something…we need to do: take big, sometimes even controversial, decisions about our country’s infrastructure.”
However, in the Bill, the Government’s proposal to place the National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory footing has been withdrawn. I hope that the Government will think again.
The Bill aims to build houses, but it does nothing to build communities. The failure to provide the commission with statutory powers to enable strategic decision making on infrastructure is a missed opportunity to tackle the housing crisis. The House Builders Association, which represents small and medium-enterprise builders, said that the Bill was unlikely meaningfully to increase supply.
This is the sixth piece of legislation in the past six years to make provision for planning. Another Bill passes and the Government fail adequately to resource planning departments, which have faced a 46% cut in funding over the past five years. A recent survey by the British Property Federation identified under-resourcing as the primary cause of delays to development. Another Bill passes, and the Government fail to increase the transparency of viability assessments, which many people believe is the key to ensuring that there is sufficient and appropriate affordable housing. Another Bill passes and we are no closer to developing garden cities and new towns, which we need to build to ensure that our children and our children’s children can find a home of their own.
The Bill will not deliver social housing and the genuinely affordable homes that are desperately needed. It will not provide facilities on new housing developments that are required to build communities, and it is unlikely to facilitate opportunities for the struggling SME builder, or tackle the growing skills crisis in the construction sector. The Bill has failed to tackle those issues, but I am interested to hear the Minister say that there is an appetite to look at the Bill and perhaps amend it in Committee. If it is not amended, the missed opportunity will manifest itself in a continued housing crisis until the Government can step up and match their rhetoric with substance.

Oliver Letwin: I have to admit that I did not expect to be stirred by the statements of the shadow Secretary of State, but her remarks about clause 7 would strike anyone who has been engaged with the planning system over the past many years as quite extraordinary. Pre-commencement conditions imposed by local authorities are a major cause of delay and also distract the officials who she complained were underfunded. One reason why they are over-occupied is that they are too preoccupied issuing absurd pre-commencement conditions that are not properly enforced and lead to massive delays in the process. I warmly welcome clause 7, and hope that the regulations introduced by the Secretary of State will be extremely strong on that issue and will be accompanied by measures to enable us to do in parallel what is currently done in sequence. It takes about two years on average from the time of the first application to the actual completion of homes. Other countries manage that in a year or less, and we could too if processes that are currently done repetitively and in sequence were done in parallel and singly. I hope that we will see those regulations as the Bill proceeds.
Those of us who have been involved with neighbourhood planning since the Conservatives first introduced the proposals—amazingly, nine years ago—are conscious of its huge success. We were told at the beginning that it would be a nimby’s charter, as the Secretary of State rightly mentioned. We were told by others that it would never grip the nation and that there would not really be any neighbourhood plans, but we find that they have been introduced in some 2,000 places. Judging by my constituency, that is the beginning of a tidal wave: more than half the villages of West Dorset intend to engage in neighbourhood planning, and that is increasingly the case for the towns as well. There is no doubt, as the Secretary of State rightly said, that the measure is far from being a nimby’s charter, but as communities engage in neighbourhood planning they wrestle with two conflicting issues: their desire to preserve the look and feel of the places in which they live, which is a reasonable human desire, and the desire that their children and grandchildren should be able to find a home in the locality. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has experienced this, but people have come to my constituency surgery in tears because they could not get a foot on the housing ladder. I cannot remember another subject that has provoked that kind of emotional intensity. For families who have grown up, in some cases over hundreds of years, in small villages where they simply have not been able to build, this is liberation. It has been brought about by neighbourhood planning, because the community feels that it can control the shape and character of what is built so that it is appropriate to the location. That is not something that can be judged from miles away: it is judged on the spot by the locals, and it is a huge success. I therefore warmly welcome clauses 1, 2 and 5, which are the guts of the Bill.
I want to make a few observations about things that I hope can be developed in Committee and on Report. Clause 5 deals with assistance for neighbourhood plans. I had hoped that it would be a little stronger and meatier. It simply requires local authorities to produce an explanation of what they will do to support neighbourhood planning. That is fine—there is nothing wrong with that at all—but I know local authorities,  and I suspect that the Department does too, that will write any number of plans and do absolutely nothing. What is needed is the ability for neighbourhoods—in some cases, hard-pressed neighbourhoods that do not have much money; in other cases, neighbourhoods that are small parishes that do not have much money—to get on with the job of neighbourhood planning. I do not think that anyone can expect the public purse to meet those costs, so we need to examine the proposal introduced by the National Association of Local Councils for more of the community infrastructure levy to be devoted to neighbourhood plans, at least when they introduce local development orders, which are extremely effective. We should also look at the possibility of a loan arrangement, in which money from the community infrastructure levy for a neighbourhood plan is used to repay or defray the costs of engaging in the exercise.
It is not a simple exercise. In most neighbourhoods that I have visited up and down the country, and in my own constituency, hundreds of people get involved and it is quite a management exercise. Neighbourhoods can only do it if they employ one or two people who can put the vision up on the board, explain what is proposed, and go through the detailed process—the examination, the referendum and so on—which requires up-front funding. I hope that that can be looked at.
Finally, clauses 1 and 2 are long overdue. In retrospect, we should have introduced them right at the beginning, in the 2010 legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and I were both involved in that, and it is great to see weight being given to post-examination, as in clause 1, and it is absolutely right that post-referendum neighbourhood plans should go into local development plans even if the local authority does not, for one reason or another, complete the task of introducing them. That is an excellent provision in clause 2. However, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made a point that is highly relevant. As the Secretary of State said, there are too many local authorities that have not yet introduced new-style local development plans. Unless the neighbourhood plan is couched in terms of a new-style local development plan with a proper strategic grip it is impossible to formulate the right kind of neighbourhood plan, which must conform to the strategic considerations of the local development plan. In some cases, I fear, local authorities have discovered that they can stymie the ability of neighbourhoods to produce neighbourhood plans simply by being recalcitrant about producing new-style development plans.
Given that, in clause 7, the Secretary of State is rightly taking powers to make regulations relating to pre-commencement conditions, I think he should at least consider the possibility of taking further powers to force local authorities to produce new-style local development plans, or else simply to allow a neighbourhood plan to stand in as the development plan for that neighbourhood, sui generis. Either would do, but I think that something must be done to address the problem raised by my hon. Friend.
Having said that, I will end by saying that the Bill is a progressive piece of legislation which should be welcomed throughout the House and throughout the country, because it may help our children and grandchildren to have the homes that they need.

Theresa Villiers: I warmly agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment and commend his hedgehog campaign.
A number of provisions in the Bill will be helpful in delivering the new homes that we need and to which the Government are committed. We have had some helpful insight into how clauses 1 to 6 will help to strengthen neighbourhood planning and make it more effective. Establishing a register of prior approval applications for permitted development rights under clause 8 will also be welcomed, not least because of the concern felt about such rights. More visibility and transparency will be helpful in that regard. Clauses 9 to 30 look as though they will make the eye-watering complexity of some aspects of the compulsory purchase system somewhat easier to navigate. I hope that that will assist some of the major regeneration schemes.
However, a concern has been raised with me by my constituent Dr Oliver Natelson about the provisions in clause 7 on pre-commencement planning conditions, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has spoken eloquently. Dr Natelson was worried when media coverage of the announcement of the Bill in the Queen’s Speech indicated that obligations to carry out archaeological and wildlife surveys would be “swept away”. I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification on that today, and I invite the Minister to expand on it and to confirm that clause 7 will not restrict the power of local councils to impose the planning conditions necessary to make a development acceptable, including those relating to wildlife, habitats, flooding and heritage.
I would also urge the Minister to consider an important point that is not covered by the Bill. It relates to vacant public sector land. An example in my constituency is a site in Wood Street in High Barnet that is owned by the NHS but has not been used for many years and is becoming increasingly derelict. No matter how many times I raise this with the NHS, nothing seems to happen. In my view, it should take a decision either to use it for healthcare purposes or to sell it on so that it can be used for new homes or open space.
I should like to illustrate some of the general issues underlying the Bill and its objectives by considering the situation in my Chipping Barnet constituency. Over the last five years, around 5,300 new homes have been delivered in the borough of Barnet, including more than 2,000 affordable homes. This is the biggest programme of house building in outer London, and Barnet’s Conservative council plans to deliver another 20,000 homes over the next 10 years. In order to do that while conserving our precious green spaces and protecting the character of our suburban environment, the council has embarked on a number of large regeneration projects. These include four of the borough’s largest housing estates, one of which is Dollis Valley in my constituency. These regeneration projects are due to deliver 7,000 new homes—4,000 more than were previously on the estates—with a mix of social rent, affordable and market rate homes to buy. Although this work started over 10 years ago, it has much in common with the council estate regeneration strategy announced by the Government in February. By 2020, it is hoped that the council will have built 500 new council homes. So far, 40 have been built but the pace of delivery is increasing.
A key consideration in relation to planning and house building, whether in national debates in Parliament such as this one or in local discussions on development proposals, is whether the local infrastructure can cope with the new demands being placed on it. Locally in Barnet, work is under way to try to deliver this in relation to the housing schemes I have mentioned. For example, 10 new or replacement schools are planned across the borough at primary and secondary level, as well as new college and university buildings. I also warmly welcomed the recent opening of the Hope Corner community centre as part of the Dollis Valley regeneration scheme in my constituency, and I thank Barnet Council and Barnet Churches Action for enabling that to happen. I am sure that the community centre will be a great asset for the many new homes that are already being delivered as part of the regeneration.
However, issues surrounding infrastructure are sometimes difficult or impossible to resolve. In my constituency, that is particularly true when they relate to local roads and transport. This was one of the many reasons I opposed the redevelopment of Cat Hill on the boundary of my constituency. It is deeply regrettable that my constituents are already suffering the negative consequences of Enfield Council’s decision to grant planning permission for that project. I am also concerned about a proposal to redevelop the North London Business Park in the Brunswick Park area of my constituency. Many residents are strongly opposed to this plan, and understandably so. I try to support new homes where I can, but that application is just not acceptable. Some 1,200 new homes are proposed, including five blocks at least seven storeys high, with other blocks of up to 10 storeys high. As my constituent Gilbert Knight put it in his representations to the planning authority, this would be
“massive in scale and out of keeping with the surrounding low-rise residential areas”.
Another grave concern is the proposal to create an entrance to the site from Ashbourne Avenue. A similar proposal was rejected back in the 1960s because the roads could not cope with it, and I sincerely hope that it will be rejected again for that reason. That is one of the many reasons I am resolutely opposed to this development, alongside ward councillor Lisa Rutter.
I should like to move on to some happier examples in which the planning system looks as though it will deliver new homes in a way that is much more acceptable to local residents and much more in tune with the local environment. New Barnet provides an example of how active community associations can shape the character of their local neighbourhoods, defeat plans they do not like and still deliver significant numbers of new homes. In a four-year battle, the Save New Barnet campaign group defeated attempts by both Asda and Tesco for new supermarkets in the area. Rather than just opposing the plans, residents put forward a credible and workable alternative for new homes. Eventually, both supermarket giants gave up the struggle and decided that it was best to work with rather than against the local community. New homes have been built on the Tesco site, and around 364 are now likely to go ahead on the Asda land. There are still issues to be resolved, not least in ensuring that section 106 money goes to benefit the immediate surrounding area rather than being spent further afield. None the less, this is an illustration of how a system that has a very active role for local communities is not  incompatible with delivering new homes, which is why I thought it was appropriate to refer to it in a debate on this Bill.
In conclusion, although the Bill provides some useful improvements to a number of aspects of the planning system, there are still some important issues with which to grapple. I will leave the Minister with a few questions about the Bill and the Government’s approach to delivering more homes. First, I would like his views on the calls by local authorities to be able to recover more clearly the costs of the planning process through the fees that they levy on applications made. Secondly, what further steps can be taken to ensure that landowners build the homes for which they have been given planning permission, rather than land banking them? Thirdly, what further action can be taken to help London residents buy property in the capital and compete with investment buyers from around the world who are pushing up prices?
Finally, I wish to draw the House’s attention to some picturesque fields in the northern part of my constituency in High Barnet. This is known locally as Whalebones because of the whalebone gateway that frames the entrance to the land. With its field of geese, it is a local landmark that is held in great affection. Sadly, it is now under threat from development.
In my speech this evening, I have sought to emphasise some of the big efforts that are being made to deliver thousands of new homes in my local borough through regeneration and brownfield development. We need new homes, and this Bill will help to deliver more of them. We can build them without sacrificing vital green spaces such as Whalebones. That is why I will be campaigning with determination to protect this much-loved enclave of green space, which matters so much to my constituents in Chipping Barnet.

Helen Hayes: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, and it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers).
I am a supporter of neighbourhood planning. Before entering this place, I spent my working life as a town planner seeking to involve and engage communities in planning policymaking. I know the benefits that come from giving communities the ability to shape planning policy and from giving that policy formal weight in the planning process. I therefore welcome the measures in this Bill, which will strengthen neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood planning. I also have concerns about several aspects of this Bill, which reflect my wider concerns about the Government’s approach to planning.
We have in the UK a strong plan-led system, which allows democratically elected local authorities to lay out the basis on which applications for new development will be considered. There is no excuse for not having a plan in place or for poor performance. Last year, the Government made that system less coherent with the introduction of permission in principle, which introduces a blunt form of zoning into our finely balanced plan-led system that is capable of balancing so many different interests and concerns to get to a good decision.
I am concerned that this Bill does nothing to address the serious under-resourcing of planning departments while also giving local authorities new responsibilities to resource neighbourhood planning. Resources for local planning departments have been cut by 46% in the past five years, and the British Property Federation—not councils themselves but the private sector—identifies that this under-resource is the primary cause of problems in the planning system. During debates on the Housing and Planning Bill, I argued that councils should be able to recover the full cost of development management services through fees. I was very disappointed that the Government rejected that proposal at the time, and I hope that the new Minister will reconsider it. It is a common sense proposal that will make a huge difference to efficient planning decision making.
Councils must also be properly resourced to support neighbourhood planning, Involving and engaging communities is resource intensive, particularly in areas where there are high levels of deprivation, but unless it is done properly we will not have neighbourhood plans that fully represent the views of the local community. Sadly, it remains the case that those in our communities who often stand to gain the most from the things that planning can deliver—for example those in housing need—are often those whose voices are not heard in debates about planning policy, and that must change.
I am concerned that this Bill proposes to water down pre-commencement conditions. Planning conditions are one of the significant levers that local planning authorities have to secure the best possible outcomes for communities. Very often, the things that form the basis for conditions are make or break issues for communities—anything from providing additional sewer capacity to the choice of bricks. Conditions should not be unreasonable, but it should remain the prerogative of the local authority to decide what conditions best protect the interests of local residents. The idea that conditions can be imposed only following the written agreement of the developer greatly underestimates the role that conditions play in ensuring good outcomes. This proposal also sets up an unnecessarily adversarial relationship between applicant and local authority where, in reality, it is best practice for the parties to come together to discuss and agree conditions through the pre-application process. I hope that the Government will reconsider this proposal.
I am concerned that the measures in this Bill relating to permitted development rights do not even begin to address the problems that are being caused by the extension of permitted development rights to allow the conversion of offices to residential without planning consent. In London, the policy is having a detrimental effect on the supply of business space in some areas. We are also seeing new homes being delivered without regard for the physical infrastructure or public services to support an increasing population because they are not subject to section 106 agreements. We are seeing new homes being delivered without regard to minimum space standards or the types of homes that are most needed. Most importantly, we are seeing new homes being delivered with no affordable housing being provided in areas where it is desperately needed.
Instead of tinkering with the policy around permitted development rights, the Government should be radically rethinking it so that all new homes are subject to the full requirements of the planning process and developers  are not able to profit from new homes without contributing to the green space, play space, school places and medical facilities that their residents will need in the future.
Fundamentally, this is a tinkering piece of legislation when we need major reform. It is polishing the bannister when the staircase is falling down. The housing crisis is one of the most significant issues facing our country. The planning system is critical to delivering both the new homes that we need and the successful communities that we want to see. This is no less than a debate about the future of our communities for our children and our grandchildren, the kind of places that we want them to be able to live in and the quality of life that we want them to have. Properly resourced planning is a tool for delivery not a barrier—a tool for ensuring fair outcomes and high quality. Instead of this paltry Bill, the Government should be setting out a vision for planning and for involving communities in planning; bringing forward a national infrastructure commission on a statutory footing, because infrastructure is critical to the delivery of new homes; building up our plan-led system as the basis for certainty in decision-making; establishing a basis in legislation for new towns and garden cities; setting a context for communities and councils to come together to plan for the future; and resourcing councils to build the genuinely affordable council homes that we so desperately need. As this Bill passes through Parliament, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to reconsider it and to make it fit for the challenges that we face.

Richard Bacon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I agreed with some of the things that she said, and certainly with the emphasis that she placed on infrastructure and the need to get it right. We have a strange system in which we bring forward development as if it is a bad thing, and put in facilities—she mentioned green spaces, but there are many other things that communities want, such as health facilities and primary schools—afterwards to mitigate the “bad effects” of development. However, recognising that the words “cities” and “civic” are cognate with “civilisation”, we should be bringing forward holistic schemes that create good places in the first instance.
I disagreed with the hon. Lady, though, when she nearly made it sound as though the planning system would be almost as perfect a work of art as any rendered by Leonardo da Vinci were it not for one thing—the way that not enough taxpayers’ money was being hosed over the planning departments of this country. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) said something similar. It seems to me that the problems are rather more fundamental.
I welcome the Bill, mainly because it gives people a local voice. I agree with all the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin); he is no longer here, so I shall not dwell on this, but I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is in his place. He is a great tribune of his constituents and is also the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on self-build, custom and community house building and place-making, which has a longer name than any other all-party group as it is a better and more important all-party group than any  other, with the possible exception of the all-party beer group. It recognises, as does the hon. Gentleman, that the really important thing about getting the voice right is that it should be the voice of the people who are going to live in the dwellings.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said that the local planning system should embrace every single house, and talked about the colour of bricks as if it were a good thing that local councillors were deciding the colour of bricks. I had a conversation recently with a local house builder who had a plan for a very modern house. Naturally, he wanted a render that was appropriate for that. It was bright white. He had a conversation with his local planning officer—I am not making this up—who said, “No, no. It’s too white. It’s too stark. You shouldn’t do that”, so he asked the planning officer to look at the relevant page on the website and choose the colour. She was a little nonplussed by this, but the house builder said, “You don’t want the one that I want, so why don’t you choose one and save a lot of time?”. Eventually she chose a colour, which he said he would change in due course if he did not like it. It ought not to be necessary to have such a conversation. I have met house builders who have had seven or eight choices of gutter colour refused.

Richard Bacon: I agree that they are important. The best people to choose the quality of the materials, and to make sure that they are of the highest possible standard, are the people who will live in those dwellings, not somebody else working to a profit margin, which is why more self-build and custom house building will result in higher quality.
I said earlier that I agreed with the hon. Lady on the subject of the local voice. I support the Bill because we need more local voice. The fundamental problem we face is that when people oppose development, they do so not because they want to see their family in trouble or not having somewhere to live. I have yet to meet the woman who wants her daughter or granddaughter to live in a ditch, and I do not think I am going to meet that person. They oppose development because they feel that local people have no say—no voice—in what gets built, where it is built, what it looks like or who has the first chance to live there. If we change that, we change the conversation completely.
Another reason why self-build and custom house building driven by customers is so important is that instead of opposition, it is met with local acceptance. I know that the chairs of many parish councils want to see dwellings in their local areas designed by local people for local people, to help local people. Of course, that also has the benefit of helping local house builders—local small and medium-sized enterprises, rather than large combines such as Persimmon, which are interested only in the bonus pool, which will result in 150 top managers getting a £600 million bonus pot, if they do reasonably well; it will be larger than that if they do very well. That business, like the banks, has been propped  up by huge amounts—many billions of pounds—of taxpayers’ money through Help to Buy and various other schemes. I would rather see that money going into higher-quality materials, better thermal performance and bigger spaces.
The fundamental question, which we have not been very good at answering so far, is why we have a shortage. People give different answers. We have heard about the lack of planning resource, although we have thousands of unbuilt extant planning permissions, so the reason can hardly be planning by itself. We often hear that there is a lack of land. Only 1.2% of the land area of this country is taken up with houses. The Ministry of Defence alone has 2% of the land area of the UK. There are more golf courses in Surrey than there are houses. The problem is not planning per se; it is a lack of accessible land, a lack of financeable propositions, rather than a lack of finance, and a planning model that is broken.
If we want to correct that, we need to put customers at the heart of that model—people who will live in those dwellings. The way to do that is to separate the business of placemaking—all the things that I am sure the hon. Lady would agree with: creating places that are well served, well designed, well run, well governed and well connected—from the business of building houses on infrastructure that is already in place, with well serviced plots that have all the things that we would expect, including fibre to the premises, water, gas and so on, provided by one of the many hundreds of suppliers. There is a growing market of people out there who are willing to supply the house that people want, rather than what a very small number of large companies are telling people that they want. We need to put the customer at the centre, as in all other successful markets. That is the way that we will solve the housing crisis.7.55 pm

Iain Stewart: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green).
Let me say at the outset that I have no quibbles at all with the provisions of the Bill, which are sensible enhancements to the neighbourhood planning process. I very much support the overall principles of neighbourhood planning: it is absolutely right that local communities have the ability to shape the future size and content of development. I also accept absolutely that neighbourhood plans cannot be out of kilter with the overall strategic housing needs of a town or a wider local authority area. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) correctly made the point that neighbourhood plans have not been a nimbys’ charter, and communities engage enthusiastically with them.
However, I do have some concerns, which I would like to put on the record. I am concerned that the potential for neighbourhood planning is impaired by some of the unintended consequences of wider planning  issues, and several Members—particularly the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—alluded to that. Let me illustrate the point further with an example from my constituency.
On the southern edge of Milton Keynes is a charming little village called Bow Brickhill. It has a few hundred residents. It is a place of great civic pride and engagement. If there is a charity event to raise funds for a local facility, the residents are the ones who put together all the events to raise the money. They have engaged enthusiastically with neighbourhood planning, and many of them have devoted considerable time and energy and their own resources to developing the plans. They are far from being nimbys; in their plans, they wish to see some sensible development. They want, naturally, to preserve the semi-rural character of the village, both for its own sake and because it is one of the leisure facilities of the Milton Keynes area, with plenty of open spaces. However, the residents are now becoming confused, exasperated and, indeed, angry that the hard work they have put in may come to nothing. The problem is nothing to do with their neighbourhood plan; it is to do with Milton Keynes’s ability to meet the rigid five-year supply target. Let me just put that in context.
Milton Keynes has made an enormous contribution to the number of new houses in this country. We celebrate our 50th birthday in January, and our population is already well in excess of the quarter of a million the original planners envisaged. We have developed plans, which are now being considered by the local authority, to further expand the population—potentially by as much as 400,000—over the next few decades. The National Infrastructure Commission has been tasked by the Government to look at developing the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor as an economic and housing growth and a transport development project, with projects such as east west rail and the Oxford to Cambridge expressway. I am in the top 10 electorates in the country, and at every election I contest there—I have done four now—there are more and more doors through which to deliver leaflets.
In addition, in 2013, Milton Keynes Council passed its core strategy, which will deliver 28,000 houses over the next 10 years, but they are not being developed quickly enough. I do not have time this evening to go into all the reasons why that is the case, but we are not meeting that target. Consequently, unplanned, speculative applications for housing outside the development areas are being granted, and some of those are immediately adjacent to the village of Bow Brickhill. If they are granted, they will, effectively, render redundant its neighbourhood plan. That is why the neighbourhood is considerably concerned.
Compounding this situation is the fact that the neighbouring authority—Aylesbury Vale—had a local plan that did not get through the inspectorate. It is now working on a new plan, but in the absence of that, applications for even larger speculative developments are being put in right on the border between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes. These are massive developments and would change utterly the semi-rural area around Milton Keynes.
Therefore, we have a situation in which, in a part of the country where we have expanded and want to develop; where we have enthusiastic communities that want to take part in shaping their neighbourhoods;  and where we are in line with wider Government objectives on transport planning and we are developing the Oxford to Cambridge corridor, all that planned, sustainable development is under threat because we are not meeting the rigid targets I mentioned.
I therefore simply ask the Minister to give us some space and flexibility to develop our plans, either by giving flexibility on the five-year target or by bringing in measures to speed up the delivery of already agreed housing. That would be widely applauded in the local area, and it would reignite the enthusiasm for neighbourhood planning.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). I will be brief, as the hour is late. I have one or two things, as a chartered surveyor and declaring my Member’s interests as a landowner, that I would like to say about the Bill, which I warmly welcome.
Neighbourhood planning is very important. The problem is that, in my constituency, it is not working. It is not working because I represent two local authorities, one of which has a local plan and the other of which—Cotswold—does not have a local plan, for reasons best known to itself. The result, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, is that, in the Cotswolds, which is 80% in the area of natural beauty, we have one of the most complicated planning systems anywhere in the country. I represent over 100 towns and villages, and we do not have a single neighbourhood plan adopted, because we do not have a local plan in place. That cannot be acceptable, and I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today that he will take powers in the Bill to force local authorities, where they have been laggards like mine, to get a local plan in place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth—I would do exactly that. We need to simplify neighbourhood plans, as we have done in this Bill. We need to give them greater weight, as we have done in the Bill.
However, there are problems even where there is a local plan in place. Stroud district council has a local plan in place. I have a village in the very south of my constituency, which is huge—65 miles long—that has an advanced-stage, very professional neighbourhood plan in place, and there is also a local plan in place. However, a developer took the district council to appeal over an area right next to the cricket pitch and the village hall. The village was desperate not to develop it, but the decision was overturned on appeal. I would just say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, where there is a local plan and a neighbourhood plan in place, it should be de rigueur that the Planning Inspectorate does not overturn those plans on appeal, except in wholly exceptional circumstances.
I warmly welcome the powers to look at pre-commencement orders. As a chartered surveyor, I have advised, on an unpaid basis, on a very big development in East Anglia. Although it was designated in the local plan from the beginning, the process took five years because of the over-zealousness of the local authority. Think of all the houses that could have been built by now if the over-zealous pre-commencement conditions were not in place.
Finally, I want quickly to move on to compulsory purchase because nobody has said much about that in this debate. I spent many months sitting on the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Select Committee, and I have seen how HS2, as a major public acquiring authority, works. Some of the compulsory acquisitions, of which there were a very large number, were in my view over-zealous. We need to be careful about large acquiring authorities being over-zealous.
I am grateful for the provisions in the Bill on temporary acquisitions, but, equally, the requirement for such acquisitions should be tempered by what the acquiring authority needs to do on them. If it needs to demolish somebody’s house, proper compensation should be paid.
I am concerned about the provision to do away with the 10-year disturbance payment. Where there is an uplift in the value of the land, even subsequently, the person whose land has been acquired gets some benefit from that uplift. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the no-scheme world. In theory, that is an ideal way of valuing a property—as a chartered surveyor, I know about these things—because it ignores the uplift, or indeed the fall, caused by the scheme itself. The danger is that the acquiring authority will acquire properties too cheaply, because there will be no allowance for any hope value for potential planning permission. Given that a lot of the big schemes are near centres of population, where the land will—if not immediately, at least in due course a few years down the line—get planning permission, it seems to me that the acquiring authority is getting an unnecessary advantage.
However, I warmly welcome the provisions for compulsory purchase whereby interest can be paid and payments in advance can be made. As we saw on the HS2 Bill, all these things are desperately necessary. With those few words, I warmly welcome this Bill.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate because planning has certainly affected my constituency for a good number of years. I was going to touch on the five-year land supply issue, but that has been ably covered by a number of colleagues.
My constituency is part of Leeds. It has enjoyed a great deal of prosperity and growth, but if I look at just one of the wards in my constituency, it has seen more than 1,000 homes built in it during the past few years, with very little infrastructure to support it. There is therefore a growing sense of frustration when people cannot get to work because the roads are congested, when their children cannot get into the school or when they struggle to get a doctor’s appointment. As a consequence, when neighbourhood planning was first introduced, it was seen as an opportunity for communities such as mine.
I must say, however, that in our instance there was concern right from the very outset. In its core strategy, the city council decided that it will build 70,000 homes during the plan period. That is an ambitious target—it will mean a considerable number of houses have to be built each year—but the problem is that that target, we believe, was based on outdated information. It was based on the 2008 population projections, which said that the number of people across the city would go up to 765,000 by 2011. The census showed us that that was wrong, with a 14,000 difference.
I am raising this matter because the city council obviously has to find sites on which to build these houses. In my constituency, all the mills and factories have gone, and we have done the right thing by building houses to regenerate those sites. However, all we have left now is the green belt. The neighbourhood plans in my areas have to conform to the strategic approach of the city council, which says that we have to build 70,000 houses. My areas have to adhere to that in the neighbourhood plans, and are therefore being forced to look at green-belt sites. They do not want to do that—of course they do not want to—and they are actively trying to stop that happening. I see a real problem because if my areas put forward such green-belt sites in a referendum, there is absolutely no way that that would get through, and we would not therefore have a neighbourhood plan.
I have asked questions time and again. I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. He will be hearing a lot from me, I am sure, over the coming months.

Craig Tracey: I am delighted that the Government are giving local people the opportunity to shape the future of their communities. Our constituents have long asked for a greater say on planning, so I welcome the fact that the Bill gives them more power and delivers on our manifesto promises.
There can be no doubt that there is a need for housing, but it is vital that it is delivered in a way that is not only sustainable, but that complements and enhances our local areas. I am therefore very supportive of the key aims of the Bill. Results are already emerging to show that the Government are right to trust our communities to develop their own neighbourhood plans. As has been pointed out, early figures indicate that the level of house building in areas that have a plan is more than 10% higher than in the council’s local plan.
I will raise three matters with the Minister that are of concern to my constituents. He may be able to reassure them that they need not worry. First, I am conscious that although an acceleration in house building is required, developing a neighbourhood plan is a long drawn-out process. That means that those who are now starting on the journey and have a plan that is sufficiently developed to provide meaningful input to the local plan do not have the protections of those who have gone through the referendum phase. Clause 1 goes some way towards addressing that, but will the Minister clarify what guidance will be given to local authorities so that there is consistency in the decision-making process not only from community to community, but across all decision makers? I welcome clause 5, which sets out the support a local authority will offer those who wish to create a neighbourhood plan by way of a statement of community involvement, which should be an enabler of quicker implementation.
Secondly, sustainability should be a key consideration for any development. It is understandable that local residents show concern when consultations are put forward for sizeable developments in their area. A good example  is Dordon and Polesworth in my constituency, where 3,000 new houses have been proposed. That would have a huge impact on the infrastructure and services that residents enjoy, not least on the already creaking road network. It is important that plans are made and that residents always have an input on potential new schools, roads, doctors’ surgeries and other local services. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to ensure that the provision of infrastructure and amenities is always a key consideration for local authorities when granting planning consent, and that when there is any significant house building the sustainability of the area is at the forefront of the design plans.
Finally, I wish to raise an issue of particular interest to me and to many of my constituents and those of other Members: the protection of our green belt. I am fully aware that the NPPF puts great emphasis on that, and there has been minimal development on it under the Conservative Government. However, areas such as Keresley and Fillongley in my constituency live in constant fear that a perceived demand for housing, particularly under the duty to co-operate with larger neighbouring councils, puts their green belt at risk of being developed on.
One of the key messages that I receive regularly from parish councils is that the calculation of housing needs seems to be over-inflated and does not reflect actual requirements, especially when local borough councils have met their supply targets. There is a real threat that predominantly rural areas such as North Warwickshire, which, as I have said, are annexed by much larger authorities, will be forced to develop on their green belt to meet the needs of other areas. That cannot be fair.
I must question the method of calculation. I was recently given the example of Coventry, which is seeking to take a number of properties in my constituency as it is unable to meet its own housing demand. It was calculated by the Office for National Statistics that there would be a population increase of about 79,000 in Coventry by 2031, which Coventry was unable to satisfy. Closer inspection of that number is quite revealing, however, showing that the predicted numbers of internal migration and immigration movements essentially cancel each other out, leaving the 79,000 people to come almost wholly from international immigration. As a result of the referendum in June, the Government are committed to a system of controlled immigration, so it is reasonable to assume that that number may no longer be a true reflection of need once the Brexit negotiation is concluded.
I would therefore like the Minister to consider including a further measure in the Bill: a pause on green-belt development unless there is a specific request from local residents. That would enable a review of the demand that our councils will face, which is surely difficult to estimate until the exact nature of what breakfast will look like—[Interruption.] I mean Brexit—somebody else got into trouble for that the other day. It is catching. It is difficult to estimate until the exact nature of what Brexit will look like is concluded. Once the green belt is developed on, it is lost forever. We should always ensure that we have strong safeguards in place to protect it wherever possible.
Good development requires the developer, local people and the council to work together, and the Bill encourages dialogue to ensure that development better meets the needs of all interested parties. There should always be a balanced approach between providing the right number  of houses and affording our local communities the opportunity to improve their infrastructure while retaining their identity. The Bill strikes that balance by giving local people real control over their future, and I will support it tonight. However, I ask that due consideration be given to the important concerns that I have raised.

William Wragg: I am pleased to be able to speak on Second Reading of the Bill, which I broadly welcome. I support its main aims of making the housing market work better for everybody, helping to identify and free up more land to build homes, and speeding up the delivery of the new homes that are so badly needed in many areas of the country. Those aspects of the Bill will help improve the planning system to make it easier to deliver the Government’s ambition of 1 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.
When I arrived in the House last year a sage senior colleague advised me never to get involved in planning matters. Although that may be very sound advice on conservatories and house extensions, it is none the less our duty to ensure that we play a full role in the scrutiny of the Bill. With that in mind, it is good so see such a strong new ministerial team on the Treasury Bench; I look forward to engaging with that team constructively.
I also support the Government’s manifesto commitment to encourage communities to be more engaged in neighbourhood planning, particularly as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for civic societies. Community engagement is vital; we need it to build homes and infrastructure while ensuring that that is done in a way that is sympathetic and sensitive to the wishes of local communities. In my view, that will mean that we can build more, not less, as developers and local authorities ensure communities are brought on board at  an early stage and are therefore more likely to support developments. That process is under way in Marple in my constituency.
There is no magic wand to solve the housing shortage. It will require many years of investment, hard work and difficult choices, and while Government play a role, ultimately the work is done by those building houses: the developers. To my mind, there are three ways that developers are stalling in the process to deliver the homes we need at the rate required. The first is land banking, which many hon. Members have mentioned this evening, whereby developers buy up land, often brownfield sites suitable for building and sometimes with planning permissions already granted, but do not build on it, either because they have priorities elsewhere or because they are waiting for the value to increase.
The second issue is when developers are keen to build, but there are delays between the granting of an outline application and the submission of the full planning application. Thirdly, once planning approval has been granted, there can be delays from developers in starting construction, which can sometimes be the result of deliberate land banking, as I have mentioned. These delays cannot always be laid at the door of the planning system, which is a common cry of developers. Developers must take some responsibility themselves. However, measures from the Government to encourage developers to reduce delays are welcome, and these are contained in the Bill.

William Wragg: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. That is something that my local authority in Stockport is looking at, to ensure it can use its land assets for the development of housing, so I agree with him on that.
One thing missing from the Bill, although certainly not from our debate this evening, is the issue of the green belt. We know that green-belt land is protected under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, and it plays an important role in protecting the environment and semi-rural communities, such as the ones I represent, from urban sprawl. Fundamentally, the green belt preserves natural green land, open spaces, wildlife habitats and the character of such areas.
Although it is not currently addressed by the Bill, I am deeply concerned about the threat posed to the local green belt in my constituency by potential massive building development. For instance, the Greater Manchester spatial framework, a policy of the Greater Manchester combined authority, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) referred to, will determine where residential development can take place, including the release of green-belt land. The policy has the potential to threaten large areas of green belt in my constituency. I am concerned by the prospect of thousands of properties being built on previously protected land, especially in the High Lane and Marple areas of my constituency. There are significant doubts about whether already stretched local infrastructure could support such development.
Saying that, there is no doubt that we need more housing. However, the areas that should be developed first are brownfield sites, which are those areas previously used for other purposes. Stockport in my area has many such sites that have not yet been developed for housing, and across the country it is conservatively estimated that there is enough brownfield land for the development of some 650,000 properties, making a significant contribution to the Government’s target. I therefore want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister, if this is not covered in the Bill, what is being done or can be done to prioritise brownfield development and to protect green belts from over-zealous local authority plans, such as that in Greater Manchester. I can only hope that development in the green belt in my constituency will be as sparse as Members on the Opposition Benches are this evening.

Fiona Bruce: I welcome this Bill. The importance it places on neighbourhood plans validates the extremely hard and challenging work that so many of my constituents in the village of Brereton and the town of Sandbach have undertaken, in some cases over years, to develop neighbourhood plans and have them adopted. I congratulate them. Other areas in my constituency are working on their neighbourhood plans, which are vital in a constituency with distinct and individual local communities, lying as it does in a relatively large unitary council, Cheshire East, which stretches from the fringe of Greater Manchester down towards Shropshire. If localism is to mean anything, it is important that the people who live in such towns and villages have a real say in the development of their communities.
Does this Bill go far enough? I want to challenge the Minister in one or two ways.
I am pleased to hear the Minister say that neighbourhood plans will be given “proper consideration” in the planning process, that “due weight” will be given to them and that they will have full effect. However, will he clarify precisely what that means where a large principal authority still has no local plan and no agreed housing supply numbers? My constituents who have gone to the trouble of preparing neighbourhood plans are asking whether, if there is no local plan and no agreed housing supply number, their plans should have the status and strength of a local plan when planning decisions are being made. That is the critical question.
Without that reassurance, my constituents—particularly those in Sandbach, who are besieged by developers and who have gone far beyond making what I believe is a reasonable contribution to housing numbers in the Cheshire East area—are saying they are becoming “very disillusioned” with the neighbourhood planning process. They quote a recent planning decision in September with respect to an area of land in Sandbach. The inspector acknowledged that the Sandbach neighbourhood plan had been adopted, but said he would not examine the application in the light of that plan. Instead, he set it against the as-yet unadopted local plan with the housing supply number as yet not agreed, which relates to the whole Cheshire East area. According to my constituents, the inspector seems to be saying that the neighbourhood plan is “an irrelevance”. Will the Minister look again at strengthening the authority of neighbourhood plans where there is no completed local plan and no   agreed five-year land supply, and declare that the neighbourhood plan has the weight of a local plan where there is no such plan in place?
My constituents have been encouraged by three recent appeal decisions to the Secretary of State in East Sussex, West Sussex and Bath. The Secretary of State cited local plans in the appeals and prevented developments, highlighting neighbourhood plans as a key factor in his decision. I thank the Minister for that and hope that it indicates a trend of thinking in this area.
I support the references that have been made to land banking, or, as I refer to it, permission banking. The former mayor of Sandbach, Mike Benson, wrote to me saying:
“During the Public Inquiries held in Sandbach…Cheshire East’s Head of Planning Strategy…gave evidence that in some parts of the Borough, planning permissions granted over the last 5 years”
had resulted in not one house being built in those locations. Nevertheless, appeals continue to be allowed across Cheshire East on the basis that Cheshire East Council does not have a five-year housing supply. He says:
“What would be fairer is a formula which regards the granting of permissions as the determining factor, not the number of houses actually being built.”
Will the Minister consider that as the Bill progresses? Will he also consider the fact that it is very important to ensure we balance the need for housing with the need for employment land? Businessmen in Congleton tell me that they need more employment land. We cannot afford to have our communities turned into vast commuter belts, because there are simply not the jobs for local people to work in.
I have two final points. First, it is quite clear that in some cases where developments are occurring, for example in Congleton where 4,000 houses are projected to be built in the draft local plan, we will need extra health facilities. However, Cheshire East Council officers have contacted Public Health England, which has been unable to identify any community infrastructure levy-compliant projects to which contributions could be sought for development. It is very important that the Minister liaises with his counterparts in the Department of Health to ensure that health provision projects that can be used for community infrastructure funding are in place.
If I may stretch your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to add one further point, which relates to an issue I have been asked to raise by Cheshire East Council on the importance of guiding developments so that they avoid the most sensitive locations. I refer to a recent decision by the Court of Appeal that renders protective policies, such as green belt, green gap, wildlife conservation and Jodrell Bank safeguarding, which is critical in my constituency, as similar to “housing supply policies”. If a local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing, then such housing supply policies are deemed out of date, carrying much less weight.
I have an appeal going through now to the Secretary of State for a large development near Jodrell Bank. Jodrell Bank is concerned that having many more houses in the area will interfere with its instruments. It is a critical, individual, specific issue, and that area needs   protection. It is important that that protection is not weakened if the council is unable to resist housing in unsuitable locations. Will the Minister clarify that the Bill will ensure that such sensitive designations will not be overridden and developers’ appeals will not be allowed? Will he confirm that that will be embodied as an amendment to the NPPF?

Chris Philp: I welcome my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), to his place; I am delighted to see him on the Front Bench. I am also glad to see the hon. Members for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), and for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), fighting the fight from the Opposition Front Bench. I recall with fondness the many hours we spent this time last year on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have a shareholding in a company that finances construction projects.
I welcome the power that the first part of the Bill on neighbourhood plans will place in the hands of local communities. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider strengthening that power further in two ways. First, the preamble to the Bill says that in all but exceptional circumstances local authorities are expected to grant planning permission only in conformity with a neighbourhood plan, but if permission is granted in contradiction to a neighbourhood plan, I ask that it be made clear that it would be expected that the Secretary of State would call that in as a matter of routine, in order to create a clear incentive for local planning authorities to respect neighbourhood plans.
Secondly, is there any way to strengthen further neighbourhood plans in relation to local plans, given that neighbourhood plans will, by definition, have been passed by local referendum? The stronger they are in relation to local plans, the better. I fully accept that the local plan must be respected when it comes to total housing supply, but on questions of detail, I wonder whether the neighbourhood plan should trump the local plan, providing that it would not damage overall housing supply. The Minister will know some examples from our borough of where that might happen.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead that pre-commencement conditions are frequently a significant problem. The bureaucracy they create ties up both the local planning authority office and developments. When I intervened earlier, I touched briefly on a couple of examples—the notorious cases of bat and newt studies. Bat studies can be done only at a certain time of year, so some developments get held up for an entire year while the bat survey gets done. As for newts, the greater crested newt is apparently an endangered species across Europe. It is not an endangered species in the United Kingdom, as the wretched creature pops up on every site for development as a potential reason for delay. If the Minister could give serious consideration to making sure that the requirements relating to bats, newts and similar creatures were proportionate and appropriate, it would help to expedite the construction of housing in our country.
I agree with the point made by the Opposition Front Bencher about resources for local planning departments. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) also correctly pointed out that resources in those departments are under great pressure. They do not have enough officers, time or resources, and that is a real constraint on the granting of planning consents. Although I am not of course usually in favour of any taxes or fees, many developers would be willing pay significantly higher planning fees if they were ring-fenced to fund local planning offices and attached to a particular service level—so if a planning decision were delivered within a certain time, a higher fee would be payable.
As Louis XIV’s Finance Minister, Colbert, said, the art of taxation is about plucking the goose so as to produce the least possible amount of hissing; well, here is a goose that is begging to be plucked. The goose, if I may put it this way, wants to pay extra money to have these decisions made more quickly. It wants to pay more fees. That would help local authority planning departments, as they would then be properly resourced. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point in his concluding remarks. I shall trespass no further on the House’s time or patience, and conclude with that point.

Kit Malthouse: Beneath the thatch and clay tiles, in the shady byways and cobbled marketplaces of North West Hampshire, people are breathing a little easier as this Bill starts its passage. I would go so far as to say that on the village hall wall, next to the portrait of the Queen and the newly hoisted portrait of the Minister with responsibility for broadband, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), they are making space for a picture of the Minister for Housing and Planning, because he has finally taken a big step in bringing some sanity to what has previously been a gamble of a planning system.
We managed to get ourselves into a high-stakes game of poker between developers, councils, landowners and the Planning Inspectorate, and the compromise that emerged was often unsatisfactory to local residents, extremely expensive, and bureaucratic. That injected a sense of tension and an adversarial tone into the planning system, which should be constructive, in all senses of the word, and try to build the homes that we need.
The Government’s great peace offering to local people was the neighbourhood plan. Nowhere has embraced neighbourhood planning as strongly as my constituency, and the string of pearls running down the A303 from Oakley, Overton and Whitchurch down to Andover. We are destined to take tens of thousands of houses there over the next 20 or 30 years. Those places are embracing neighbourhood planning as the only way that they can see of making sure that planning is done with them, rather than to them.
Notwithstanding that, some ridiculous decisions have been taken in my constituency over the last year or so. In Oakley, just seven days before the referendum on the neighbourhood plan, which had been three years in the making, the Planning Inspectorate allowed an appeal for a slab development of 80 houses, which drove a coach and horses through the plan. The community might as well not have bothered. At that stage, people in the village had already voted by post, yet they knew that permission had gone through. I am very pleased that  this Minister and his predecessor took on board the concerns of lots of Members, particularly rural Members, about the need to strengthen local plans.
I would like to raise with the Minister a couple of areas where the Bill could be given even greater strength. The interaction of the different actors I mentioned and the interaction between neighbourhood plans and local plans are absolutely key. Many Members have talked about providing some kind of stick to make sure that councils have a local plan in place. Thus far, neighbourhood plans are pretty pointless without the local plan being in place. Too many councils do not have them.
I wonder whether we could offer councils an incentive, rather than a stick. Where a village has put a neighbourhood plan together and it has been approved, where a borough has a local plan that has been approved, and where there is a five-year land supply, there should be a double lock, whereby the Planning Inspectorate has no remit. These people are playing ball. They have said, “Yes, we will take the houses. This is where we want them, and this is the size and mix we want.” That has all been approved by the Planning Inspectorate, so why should a speculative developer, with an ability to pay legal fees and for hearings, and with QCs on tap, be able to come along and bully the council into reaching some kind of compromise? The council knows that if it goes to the Planning Inspectorate, the decision may not go its way, and is worried about the fines it faces if it loses. A double lock would be a way of freeing people from the man in the suit from Bristol; that would be an enormous incentive. There would certainly be a huge amount of pressure from local residents on borough councils to get a neighbourhood plan, so as to protect the residents. I put that proposal on the Minister’s plate.
My second point is on getting local people to accept housing estates. Neighbourhood planning certainly makes people much more accepting of housing, but the Government’s admirable starter homes scheme could be used to get even more acceptance. When starter homes are built as part of a development—I will have a huge development with lots of starter homes outside Basingstoke in my constituency—anybody from anywhere in the country can apply for them. How about we give local people a short period of perhaps 28 days after completion in which they have first dibs on the houses built in their neighbourhood? That way, the children and relatives of local people—people who can prove a local connection—could snap up those houses first. It would go a long way to getting people over the line, particularly as regards the large-scale developments I will have, if they have that incentive, on a generational basis.
My final point, which I would be grateful if the Minister could address, is on the provision of broadband in new developments. I raised the issue in debates on the Digital Economy Bill. It seems mad to me that we are not putting broadband compulsorily into new developments, as we would gas and electricity.

Antoinette Sandbach: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who made important points about the local development plan process, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). My constituency is a tale of two halves. The half that is in the Cheshire West and Chester Council area is protected by a local development plan. The numerous beautiful areas in my constituency that have put their neighbourhood plans in place have a protection that is not afforded to the other half of my constituency, which is in the Cheshire East Council area. Without an LDP, the neighbourhood plans do not have the same legal status. I join other hon. Members in urging the Minister to ensure that neighbourhood plans carry full protection and force.
I agree with the suggestion for an incentive. When Cheshire West and Chester Council was run by Conservatives, a proportion—10%—of the new homes bonus automatically went to the local parish council to allow it to improve amenities. I urge the Minister to consider putting that proportion in the Bill, because it allowed my local communities to make improvements to their area when they could see a direct result from new housing. For example, Tattenhall in my constituency would have used the money to build six homes for rent for local people in the agricultural community—they would have been permanent protected homes available for young people, allowing them to stay in their farming communities. Unfortunately, the council has switched to Labour control, and has swiped the whole of the new homes bonus. It will not now go to my local communities who are bearing the brunt of the housing development.
I, too, have a string of pearls in my constituency—wonderful villages such as Bunbury, Audlem, Tattenhall, Malpas and Tarporley, which developers are desperate to develop. It is vital that those communities that accept housing see a direct benefit from it. I urge the Minister therefore to consider allocating a proportion of the new homes bones to those communities. Ten per cent. is not unreasonable, and would give an incentive to people to accept development.
On the impact on infrastructure, the Minister has heard many Members of Parliament say the same thing. A recent planning decision exempted doctors’ surgeries and schools, which are statutory services, from section 106 agreements and leveraging funding from developers. This is an ideal opportunity to deal with that and allow the developers to contribute to the additional infrastructure costs that otherwise fall on the local council.
Finally, I urge the Minister to crack down hard on developers who repeatedly put in applications against neighbourhood plans, knowing that they are acting against an adopted neighbourhood or local plan. If planning permission is turned down by the local council, and the developer appeals unsuccessfully and is turned down again, I urge the Minister to consider penalty costs against them. A third of those costs could go to local councils; that could contribute towards alleviating the legal costs that they incur trying to fight these appeals. Another third could go to his Department to provide the resource that is needed for it to look at those appeals, and the final third could go to the Treasury to deal with the infrastructure impact of other developments. That would be a real win.
I urge the Minister to look at that in the Bill, because my constituents are frustrated when they see a planning process in which developers have deep process. They think that it is an unfair fight, with no incentive for councils to appeal against decisions or stand up to what they regard as bully developers. Not all developers are the same—we have many good developers in Cheshire—but the feeling among local people is that they are fighting a tide of applications that are swamping them. Some form of disincentive to tackle those repeated applications would, I hope, go some way towards discouraging that type of behaviour.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). I fully support the provisions of the Bill, and I congratulate Ministers on giving people unprecedented power over planning. It is clear that this is a power not to limit development, but to decide where those properties will go and what infrastructure is required. It is a power to decide how it looks—design is a key element in persuading local communities to support new housing in their area.
I welcome the Bill’s giving more weight to neighbourhood plans, which, as detailed in clause 1, will be effective earlier in the process. However, there is a conundrum, as colleagues have mentioned, but, as is not uncommon in the House, I will mention it again. A neighbourhood may have an effective neighbourhood plan that works with the numbers given by the district in its local plan, but it may not be able to demonstrate a five-year land supply. In those circumstances, would it not be appropriate to give full protection to a neighbourhood that delivers those numbers within the overall context of the local plan? That would be a great incentive for local communities to develop a neighbourhood plan and deliver the extra houses that are important to our communities and our national economy.
The neighbourhood planning process is dealt with in clause 5. Local authorities can give help, support and advice to neighbourhood planning steering committees. Some local authorities are less keen than others on neighbourhood plans, and regard them as an encumbrance. Would it be possible to provide some formal training, perhaps delivered centrally? I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who has been such an advocate of neighbourhood plans, came to my constituency to talk to local steering groups about how to develop them. As a result of his intervention, we now have some neighbourhood plans back on track.
I also think that small and medium-sized enterprises should be given more help. As we know, SME developers used to build 100,000 houses a year, whereas today they build about 20,000. They are critical to the supply element of the equation. I understand that the idea of extra financial support for SMEs has been mooted in connection with the autumn statement, because lack of finance constitutes one of their biggest difficulties when it comes to developing new homes, but another of their difficulties relates to land, and finding suitable small sites. The whole planning system seems to be stacked against SMEs. It is far simpler to build houses on allocated land than to build them on the windfall sites on which SMEs tend to develop them, but such sites are few and far between.
SMEs are important not just in terms of the number of houses that are delivered, but in terms of their contribution to local communities. They employ local people: local suppliers and local apprentices—SMEs account for a much higher percentage of penetration of apprenticeships per completion than larger developers—and local consultants as well. There are plenty of good reasons for the provision of more small sites that would be suitable for SME house builders, and there are a number of ways in which we could do that. It is frustrating that one of the local authorities in my constituency concentrates all its housing on large allocated sites, rather than spreading the load around the towns and villages for the purpose of not just sustainable development but sustainable communities.

Kevin Hollinrake: I definitely agree that there should be more community engagement. However, although many people in smaller villages and towns want more development, the policies of local authorities prevent that from happening, which is entirely counter-intuitive. The lack of new development puts schools, shops and public houses at risk. I wonder how we can influence local authorities and encourage them to spread the load around our smaller communities as well. Alternatively, could not a percentage of one of the larger sites—10% or 20%—be allocated to SME developers, so that they could meet some of the needs of larger communities?
Those are some thoughts for the new housing Minister. SMEs are critical to the successful delivery of the houses that we need in the United Kingdom. However, I am happy to support the measures in the Bill and the ideas behind them.

Oliver Colvile: It is a delight and a pleasure to see the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member  for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), sitting on the Front Bench. I have known him for 20 or 25 years, since he worked in the environmental research department of Conservative Central Office. He was also the special adviser in the department, and he has been following this issue for a long time.
I must declare an interest. As is shown in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I still have some shares in a public relations consultancy which advised developers on how to obtain planning permission. I have to say that I have also worked for the opposition, notably in Fulham. However, I have a fairly good understanding of the importance of taking the local community with one in order to get a planning application through.
One of the best people I ever came across was a man called David Prout, who was in the Department. He was also the director of planning at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea when we were trying to do a development on what was known as the Tesco tower on the West Cromwell Road. We had failed to get planning permission, and he eventually decided that we needed to produce a master plan in order to ensure that the local community was very much engaged in the whole process. In such cases, it is important to talk not only about the design but about the other community facilities that will be made available. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that as we seek to put housing development in place, we also look at other issues such as community facilities. I shall say more about design in a moment.
I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment, and we have just published an important piece of work on the quality of housing. I am pretty unique—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am pretty unique on the Conservative Benches in that I represent a totally inner-city seat. The only piece of countryside in my constituency is the Ponderosa pony sanctuary, which, to be honest, is just a rather muddy field. However, I have a large amount of parkland, which was developed by the Victorians and is absolutely wonderful. What is so super about it is that it has space and the settings of the properties are absolutely brilliant.
We need to recognise that if local authorities grant planning permission, that should not be the end of the matter. They must also ensure that the developers produce the development for which they have been given the planning permission. All too often, companies build up land banks but do not do anything with them. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider a proposal whereby a local authority could charge a developer business rates if it had not produced the development, having got people’s expectations up. Developers should not be allowed to have property sitting around doing nothing. It is not good enough simply to get planning permission; getting the property developed is the most important thing. That is what we on this side of the House will be judged on.
We also need to ensure that we have good quality design. I have a lot of new build in my constituency, thanks to the party opposite. When Labour was in power, it provided a lot of money for new development down in Devonport. I have to say that I am appalled by some of that development. There is brown mould on some of the buildings, and I hear stories of windows and doors that do not fit. The other day I even heard of  an instance of sewage going in underneath the floorboards. That is not good enough. This is one of the reasons that I am looking forward to talking to my hon. Friend the Minister about the all-party group’s report. We must ensure that we have better-quality buildings, rather than shoddy developments that could become the slums of the future. We need to have quality in our design as well as quantity.
I also want to encourage the Government to consider ways of getting local authorities to appoint someone to review the quality of the building and design in their area. I have been very lucky. I went to the most beautiful school in the whole country: Stowe. It has the most beautiful Palladian architecture; it is absolutely fantastic. I am not arguing that we should have Palladian architecture throughout the whole country—well, I probably am, actually—but we need to ensure that the volume house builders do not simply build the same factory-produced developments all over the country. I am passionate about this. It is vital that we give people a sense of belonging in their communities, and we need to ensure that we have quality development that will also deliver good community facilities such as doctors surgeries and village halls. It is vital that neighbourhood planning should be done in the round, rather than in isolation.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank all Members—it was mostly Government Members—who have contributed to this debate. They did an excellent job speaking up for their constituencies and the various planning issues that affect them, and extolling the virtues of neighbourhood planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) also did an excellent job in explaining how important neighbourhood planning was to his constituency and the need for local plans to refer to it. I was also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) who, as always, pointed out exactly what was wrong with the Bill, what needs to be improved and how we need to support planning more effectively.
I am rather surprised to be speaking again on planning legislation so soon after the Housing and Planning Act 2016. After all, the ink is barely dry on the paper. However, as there have been six pieces of planning legislation in the past six years, I perhaps should not be that surprised.
The Minister said that he wants to have shovels put in the ground, but I am not sure that this is the Bill to do it. Indeed, the Bill is much more interesting for what is not in it than for what is. I am not sure whether it represents—in the words of the Secretary of State earlier— “action on many fronts”. In fact, his own colleagues came up with quite a substantial list of things that should have been in this Bill. They thought that there should be something about infrastructure and how it could be funded effectively to underpin developments and something about carbon-neutral housing. They felt that local plans should have a strong relationship with neighbourhood plans, or that neighbourhood plans should trump local plans, and that there should be a green-belt review. There was some suggestion that there should be a statutory footing for local plans and deadlines  for their delivery. There were other suggestions that the Bill should cover broadband in developments, the use of vacant public sector land, how to protect hedgehogs, how to pluck geese, how to repeal applications, how to use fees more effectively, land banking and permission banking, the failure to address Brexit, and a call-in procedure for neighbourhood plans. Those were just some of the issues that were raised, so there is a lot to be addressed by the new Minister, whom I welcome to his post. I look forward to working with him in Committee on improving the Bill.
We strongly welcome the measures to strengthen neighbourhood planning. We all agree that communities should be at the heart of development and that development should start with our neighbourhoods. Any measure that will strengthen neighbourhood planning should be welcomed. Too many people think that planning is done to them, and we need to return to a much happier place in which communities feel that they and their representatives have some control over planning.
There are a few issues about neighbourhood planning that I hope to address in Committee. We need to look at whether it is being properly resourced, and whether the links to local plans are strong enough. We welcome the opportunity of a planning register that will allow for better scrutiny of permitted development and, in particular, the scale of use of permitted development. The Government Front-Bench team will know that we have a long-standing objection to permitted development being used for the delivery of housing in this country. Indeed, we would not need a register if we did not use permitted development in the way that it is used, as all homes would have to go through the planning process properly, and there would be some control of the infrastructure that supports them and the quality and standards of the properties being built. However, as the Government are using permitted development, it seems a sensible way forward for a register to be in place.
One of our main bugbears with the Bill is that it does not sufficiently recognise the difficulties that local planning departments are facing as a result of the lack of resources to carry out their responsibilities. Ministers would be living in a cupboard if they did not know that right across the housing and planning sector, developers large and small, a large number of agencies and planning departments are saying that the lack of resource for planning departments is the major spanner in the works for delivery. Since 2010 spending on planning by local authorities has almost halved, from £2.2 billion in 2010 to £1.2 billion last year. The Royal Town Planning Institute, the Local Government Association, the Town and Country Planning Association and the British Property Federation have all pointed to the fact that greater expectations must mean greater support for planning, yet the opposite is happening. Planning fees are vital to plug the gap.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Indeed. That was one of the amendments that I tabled to the Housing and Planning Bill when it was going through the House. Alas, it was rejected by the then Housing Minister. It was interesting  to hear the same point being made earlier in our discussion. I am pleased if Conservative Members are coming round to our view that planning departments should be able to set fees at full recovery level.
On a more positive note, we welcome the measures to streamline compulsory purchase orders. The new Ministers must have been studying their copy of the Lyons review. We argued strongly there that CPO was not fit for purpose and needed to be streamlined. I am pleased to see those measures in the Bill but, again, they could be improved.
I want to spend a minute or two on pre-commencement planning conditions, which is the area of the Bill on which we will probably have most discussion in Committee. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is in his place. He criticised pre-commencement planning conditions at length, yet I have a list from a development taking place in my constituency and I cannot see what is wrong with any of these conditions. The developers have to provide samples of materials. The development is in a conservation area, so that is important. They have to provide full details about bats. Well, we must protect bats. There must be noise mitigation and notice of demolition.

Gavin Barwell: I certainly do, and I think that there are ways we could look at addressing the issue, either through the Bill or through policy changes. I am very conscious of what the problem is, and I am sure that we can work together to find a solution as the Bill goes through.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) spoke passionately about the green spaces in her constituency. She also sought reassurance on pre-commencement conditions, which I can provide. The consultation paper states:
“This measure will not restrict the ability of local planning authority to propose pre-commencement conditions that may be necessary—for example, conditions in relation to archaeological investigations or wildlife surveys.”
So there is protection there.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) spoke with his customary passion about the importance of custom build. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) asked about support for groups producing neighbourhood plans. We have made £22.5 million available between 2015 and 2018. I can reassure him that that money will go directly to the groups doing the relevant work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said that the view of his constituents was, “Enough housing, infrastructure required”. I half agree with them; it is absolutely right that we must get a much better linkage between the provision of infrastructure in return  for taking more housing, but I cannot agree that we have enough housing in this country. We need more housing, but the infrastructure must go with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who is such a fantastic advocate for his constituency, spoke with passion about the difficulties it is facing. It is certainly the case that neighbourhood plans must be consistent with the relevant local plan, but he tested the issues in relation to the green belt. If he will forgive me, I cannot talk about the particular plan, because it may well cross my desk at some point, but if I can talk in the generality, we would expect inspectors to test the figure for objectively assessed need and to test whether the circumstances in which an authority seeks to change green-belt boundaries meet the test in the NPPF, which is that they should be exceptional circumstances.

Gavin Barwell: Metropolitan open land is a status that is specific to Greater London, but it holds the same weight, effectively, in Greater London as green belt. If the hon. Lady were to consult the London plan, similar circumstances should apply in terms of its de-designation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) showed his huge experience in this area in his contribution. He made a number of constructive suggestions, which we will certainly look at.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) raised issues around the calculation of assessed need and in particular in relation to migration. The population projection figures do assume a fall in migration. While migration is clearly a factor, about a third of household growth nationally is due to net migration, so even if there were no migration into the country, there would still be significant pressure for more housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) made two very powerful points. The first was about build-out rates. As a Government, we want to listen to developers and to address evidenced concerns about things that are slowing up development, be it pre-commencement conditions, the time it takes to agree section 106 agreements or concerns about utilities. However, if we do all those things, I think we have a right to turn to the development industry and ask what it is going to do to raise its game in terms of the speed with which it builds out. My hon. Friend also made another critical point, which is that, when we talk about affordable housing, yes, council and housing association housing are a part of that, but what most of our constituents want is a home that is affordable to buy, and he was absolutely right to stress that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) made the powerful point that this problem is going to take time to solve. There is no quick switch that anyone can throw to deal with it. He rightly wanted to hear more about what we can do to focus development  on brownfield land. The Act that received royal assent earlier this year set up the principle of brownfield registers, where local authorities will set out clearly the brownfield land that is available in their areas and suitable for housing development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and Opposition Members as well, referred to resourcing for planning departments, and that is something the Government have consulted on. As part of the White Paper, we will want to come forward with a response to that consultation.

Mims Davies: Are we going to intervene in the case of indolent councils that claim they have the right resources but which continually fail to provide a local or a neighbourhood plan, which we will certainly not see until the end of next year at the earliest? Can we bring in a planning inspector sooner?

Gavin Barwell: The Government have signalled that we will intervene early in 2017, potentially, on councils that do not have local plans in place. The Secretary of State talked about that issue and about our determination to take it forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) raised the critical issue of broadband, and I hope I can provide him with some reassurance on it. We have legislated through the building regulations to require that, from January 2017, all new buildings, including homes and major renovations, include in-building physical infrastructure. We are also legislating to introduce a new broadband universal service obligation to ensure people can request an affordable connection at a minimum speed from a designated provider. There are therefore measures in place, and I am happy to discuss them with him and to check that they reassure him on that vital issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) talked about the importance of incentivising communities by seeing a proportion of the uplift in land value going back to the community. I do not know whether her council has adopted the community infrastructure levy, but if it has, there is a proportion—15%—that goes to the local area, and that increases to 25% if the relevant local community has a neighbourhood plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made an absolutely vital point in relation to the importance of small sites. If we want to get small builders involved in greater numbers, it is about not just financing but releasing small sites.
Finally on the Government side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) made the absolutely critical point that this is about quality as well quantity, and that if we build beautiful buildings, it will encourage communities to go for growth.
Turning very briefly to the Opposition, there is no doubting the passion of Labour Members in addressing our housing problems, but several things were said that show their policy prescriptions sometimes do not match such ambition. I entirely understand the concerns about permitted developments, but it is worth putting on the record that we have had over 11,000 permitted development applications. We do not know the number of homes  involved—we want to collect data on that—but reform of permitted developments has made a significant contribution to increasing the housing supply.
We have also heard concerns about the duty to co-operate. I know that that is difficult, but for a core urban area that cannot meet all its housing need, it is vital that surrounding areas play their part. Getting rid of the duty to co-operate might mean not providing the housing we need in such areas.
Finally, concerns were raised about planning conditions. The shadow Secretary of State asked for data, and I have had time to dig some out. A survey of small and medium-sized builders carried out by the National House Building Council reported that 34% of them were concerned about the time to clear conditions and 29% of them were concerned about the extent of those conditions, so there is real evidence of concern on that issue.
In conclusion, last week the Secretary of State set out the first step in our plan to get this country building the homes it desperately needs. This Bill is the second step. We entirely accept that it is not on its own a solution to the problem and, later in the autumn, we will publish a White Paper. However, the fact is that for years and years we have not built enough homes in this country. The consequences for the ability of young people to get on to the housing ladder have been dramatic: 50% of 45-years-old owned their own home by the time they were 30, but only 35% of 35-years-old owned their own home by the time they were 30 and the projection is that only 26% of 25-years-old will own their own home by the time they are 30. This Government are determined to build a country that works for everyone, and critical to that will be creating a housing market that works for everyone. The Bill is an important step in a wider plan to deliver that critical ambition for the future of this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Programme)

Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Money)

delegated legislation (Committees)

Adjournment (February)

Environmental Audit Committee

Committee of Public Accounts

Stephen Hammond: I had hoped that progress might have been better, but it would be unfair on my hon. Friend the Minister to say that nothing has happened. He has met me on several occasions and pushed the case.
My hon. Friend could almost have been reading my speech, because I was about to remind the Minister of the issues that I raised last year, which I wish to raise with him again this evening. First, following that debate, he wrote a helpful letter to local authorities. The only problem is that a postcode lottery has developed. Some local authorities have been receptive to his letter, have taken the point that there is going to be a consultation, and have therefore looked to apply flexibility to when a child should enter school. That has been very good news for a number of parents. Unfortunately, many other authorities have said, “Well, that is just a letter from the Minister, and a consultation may happen at some stage in the future”, but have taken absolutely no notice. In the past two days I have had emails flooding in from people across the country sharing radically different experiences.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, we need the timetable for the changes to the code. That would lead to the end of the postcode lottery, but more importantly it would allow parents some certainty in planning their child’s future.

Stephen Hammond: I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking part in the debate this time last year, and I am grateful to him for being here again this evening. What he describes is indeed what I want, and I think it is what the Minister wants. We are here to gently push the Minister slightly further in the right direction, slightly faster.
My third point is that, as the Minister will know, one real problem is that when local authorities agree to a child’s entry being delayed, they do not all allow that child to remain with the same cohort through their whole educational life.
Finally, I want to make the case once more that in the consultation the Minister should consider using a premature child’s due date for admissions rather than the date on which they were born. That would be a simple change but would change many children’s lives.
Following last year’s debate, the Minister helpfully wrote to local authorities up and down the country setting out the Government’s intention to amend the school admissions code to provide some more flexibility, which we would all like to see. Following that letter, a number of authorities, including Wandsworth, Cumbria, Liverpool, Yorkshire, Devon and even my own local authority of Merton, have been much more generous in allowing parents to choose when their child should start school. That has been a huge relief for parents and made a difference to a number of children, and I thank the Minister on their behalf. A parent from Hertfordshire wrote to me explaining that their local authority had made some quick and simple changes to admissions, which had allowed their premature child to start a year later.
I know from emails sent to me over the past month, however, that parents up and down the country are still experiencing a problem, as many local authorities are reluctant to change their policy until they are forced to do so by the Minister and the Department, and we see the change to the code. That is leading to the postcode lottery I described earlier, whereby whether someone’s child has the opportunity to reach their full potential depends on where someone lives—
Motion lapsed Standing Order No. 9(3).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—(Heather Wheeler.)